Hoosier Daddy: Big Ten Championship Game Site Thoughts

Posted: June 6, 2011 in Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , ,

The Big Ten chose Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis as the permanent site of the conference’s new football championship game while deciding to alternate the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments between Indy and Chicago.  Even though I believe the United Center would be better served as a permanent host for the basketball tourney (not just every other year), I certainly understand the choice of Indy for the football title game.

The SEC provided a template to run a successful conference championship game by finding a permanent location that’s (A) easily accessible to as much as the conference as possible both in terms of where alums live and the schools themselves, (B) consistently dependable as a neutral site and (C) not overly dependent on a “hometown” school for interest.

I was encouraged that the Big Ten only considered proposals from Indianapolis and Chicago and didn’t even bother to review bring in places such as Detroit, Cleveland and Green Bay.  Nothing against those towns (and there’s a ton of history at Lambeau Field), but the Big Ten was wise to not turn the conference championship game into a political chit to be fought over by its members (which is what happened in the Big 12 and you now see with the Super Bowl).  Indy and Chicago were really the only two locations in the conference footprint that could realistically fulfill all 3 requirements above.  When a conference deviates from those requirements, you get the 2009 ACC Championship Game in Tampa.  Note that when the ACC woke up and moved its conference title game to its true center of Charlotte, it sold out even without any North Carolina-based schools involved.

As for the choice to play the Big Ten title game indoors, I’m a born-and-bred Chicagoan and Bears fan that has been to many games in December at Soldier Field, so I’m well-qualified to tell you that brutally cold weather football is f*cking overrated.  You’ll get no romanticism from me on missing out on supposed Big Ten football weather.  With the wind off of the lake at Soldier Field on December evenings, it generally feels a good 20 or 30 degrees colder than even the coldest November daytime football game in the Midwest.  The only other people that could possibly understand how extra cold it is in that atmosphere are those that have been to night games in Green Bay.  Since the Big Ten and Fox are always going to want to play the conference championship game in prime time, it pretty much demanded for an indoor venue.

Finally, I’ve got to give kudos to Indianapolis for bringing in its big political and business guns, such as Gov. Mitch Daniels, for its presentation to the Big Ten.  Whatever one may think of Indiana and Indianapolis, they definitely took the conference seriously, whereas it appeared that Chicago sent Benny the Bull in its uncoordinated effort.  Recently retired Mayor Daley used to be able to round up virtually everyone that mattered in town either by mayoral fiat or bulldozing airfields in the middle of the night, so I’m not quite sure what Rahm Emanuel was doing here.

Of course, we all know what the best thing will be about the Big Ten Championship Game: Gus Johnson.

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)

(Image from Mancave Sports)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. cfn_ms says:

    Interesting read. Definitely agree with you that Indy was the sensible choice for the Big Ten. I’m going to be interested to see how the Pac-12’s rotating championship game site approach works. Like the willingness to try a bold experiment and hope it works. No idea if it will, though, to be honest.

    Like

  2. jj says:

    It’s the sensible decision.

    Not the most fun though.

    If I were Indy folk, I would really, really embrace this and make it my own. It’s a hearty treasure and should be treated as such.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Not the most fun in what sense?

      For the game, I’d have much more fun indoors in Indy than outdoors in Chicago at night in December. Other than the game, you need hotels and restaurants and Indy has those in walking distance of the game.

      I’m sure Chicago has more bars and clubs, but that’s no reason to hold the CCG there. That’s a reason to have a bachelor’s party there.

      Like

      • jj says:

        i just enjoy watching football in outdoor venues. It loses something inside. I get that it would be an ice bowl, it doesn’t bother me and there is no doubt that they could sell this thing out in Chicago. Night college football games outside are the best.

        You’ll never get a shot like this in a dome.

        http://www.duncanentertainment.com/woody_profile.php

        Like

        • Brian says:

          When’s the last time you sat outdoors for four straight hours with a wind chill near zero? Did you pay $100+ for the privilege?

          I prefer outdoor football, and prefer good grass to turf, but I also prefer to be reasonably comfortable. I’d be OK with an outdoor game if it was in the afternoon, but not in prime time. I won’t ever be OK with playing in Soldier Field until they replace the field with something decent.

          Indy seats more people and they won’t get hypothermia. They also won’t try to smuggle as much alcohol in to stay warm.

          Night games are good for TV viewing but I don’t like them. There are way too many drunks, and they all dump out on the roads at once. Sports are best in sunlight.

          Like

          • jj says:

            I’ve been plenty cold before. If my team were in it, I’d likely go. Maybe my perception comes from going to lions games, which are boring as hell live.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            jj,

            I gotta agree with you about detroit 😦

            Sitting outside tho is a young mans gig, but even then Chicago just gets to a whole different level of cold

            Like

        • Brian says:

          As for the picture, I’ll just say that a repeat of the Snow Bowl would be an embarrassment for the B10. The last thing they want to broadcast to everybody is a blizzard with partially filled stands and everyone looking miserable. Showing miserable weather will impact recruiting.

          Give global warming a few more decades and maybe I’ll change my mind.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          That tie (ending above the belt) is classic.

          Like

        • Gopher86 says:

          ‘You’ll never get a shot like this in a dome’

          Have you ever been to Minneapolis?

          Like

    • frug says:

      Yeah, I always assumed that Indy was going to get the game for the indefinite future no matter what (which is probably why Chicago didn’t make a harder push). Personally, I would have preferred Chicago (though the fact that I went to U of I and live in Chicagoland probably gives me a bias), but Indy is probably the safer bet from a PR and $$$ perspective, so I can’t really fault the league.

      Like

  3. jj says:

    Also, wake up Greg!

    Like

  4. Richard says:

    Born of necessity more than anything else. Charlotte is within an 8.5 hour drive of 11 of the 12 ACC schools. There is literally no site on Earth that is within an 8.5 hour drive of more than barely half of the P12 schools (Las Vegas is within that distance of 7 P12 schools).

    Like

    • Richard says:

      That was to cfn, BTW.

      Like

    • Robber Baron says:

      I do hope the Pac-12 model works. But I’m one of those crazy people that would like to see one of the vegas development projects succeed so the Pac-12 CCG can be moved there. I know there are a ton of reasons why its a bad idea, but I’m pretty sure I would try to attend every year there, whether or not my team is in it.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        That would be great. Build a really great stadium and host P12 CCGs, BCS games, even a Super Bowl if the NFL ever admits gambling is what keeps it so popular. The Las Vegas Bowl would certainly be more popular.

        Like

        • cfn_ms says:

          Bad idea. The last thing the league needs is to start hosting events in a place that has nothing whatsoever to do with the league (see: Jacksonville and ACC). Not to mention that Vegas itself is a brand that, while fun to visit, has a lot of negatives (mainly wrt gambling, but also the housing bubble, lack of long-term infrastructure, not particularly close to any of the Pac-12 campuses, etc.).

          If they were looking for a single long-term home for football championship games, I’d say that Phoenix probably makes the most sense, given that it’s a warm-weather location with a really nice NFL stadium. Though LA or San Diego could make sense too.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Vegas is a location that can always draw people and will always be pretty neutral. The other cities bring a clear bias. LV is closer to the P12 South, but is about the most central large city. If they had a real stadium, it would be a great choice. The gambling specter will prevent it for a long time, but it would be great fun.

            Like

          • Gopher86 says:

            I think the politicians might start asking why their premier game is going to be played outside of the Pac 12 footprint.

            Like

          • Robber Baron says:

            I don’t think I’d ever go to a Phoenix game. Don’t want to end up in a tent-city prison camp just because I forgot to carry my passport with me.

            The home site model will probably be kept for a long time.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I wouldn’t call Vegas outside the footprint. It’s in the middle geographically and part of the network footprint for regional coverage. The state doesn’t have a P12 team, but it doesn’t have any other AQ conference either. It is clearly P12 territory.

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            Vegas can draw people, yes, but what kind of people. The place is billed as “Sin City” . maybe not the kind of place you want to associate with a wholesome enterprise. I am Afraid that Vegas cannot have it both ways.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Really, the city’s nickname disqualifies it?

            All sorts of people go to Vegas (international travelers, buses full of old people, families, business people at conventions, etc). There are opportunities for almost any kind of entertainment you choose, from sports to shows and from family-friendly to adult. Nobody forces you to gamble or go to adult shows. At least the gambling is legal in Vegas unlike most NFL fans who bet illegally.

            And just in case you didn’t know, all the same activities are available all over the country. There are 5 casinos in and around Chicago (16 total in IL). I’m sure there is plenty of adult entertainment in Chicago and the rest of IL, too. That means Chicago must be ineligible, too, right?

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            StvInIl – New Orleans (the original Sin City) is hosting the BCS NCG this season, but there’s a lot more to New Orleans than just sin.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            not to be the wet blanket, but I thought gambling brought down the old PCC, I can not see them risking Vegas

            Like

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            Feel free to wet blanket. I said from the start it wouldn’t happen for a long time because of gambling. At some point that is just an excuse for everyone to stay away, though, since billions are legally bet on their sports every year, and even more billions illegally.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            brian,

            which makes it all the more absurd. we exist, we take your bets, but you just can not play here

            Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Richard,

      I think you meant Charlotte is within 8.5 hours of 10/12 ACC schools. BC and Miami are both a good 13-14 hours from Charlotte.

      Like

      • Jake says:

        Vegas is a great site for the MWC basketball tournament, and other conferences (like the WAC, although that may not be the best model for success) go there despite not having a school in the area. Folks out there are very concerned about JerryWorld stealing some big events, like some of the boxing matches, and there has been serious talk about building a new stadium, either closer to the strip/downtown or at least on UNLV’s campus. That’s cool, as long as it doesn’t end up looking like this: http://www.vegashotelnews.com/2011/02/new-unlv-stadium-proposed.html

        I guess some people can’t appreciate Sam Boyd’s classic charm.

        Like

        • @Jake – I’ve always believed that an NBA team in Vegas would make a killing. It’s shocking to me that a pro arena never got off the ground there (at least before the economy tanked). I’m all for it as long as it doesn’t entail bailing out the aloof Maloof brothers.

          Like

          • Jake says:

            Las Vegas kind of reminds me of Miami – it’s like a northeastern city transplanted to another part of the country; ie, one that would be really into basketball. UNLV charges pretty premium prices for their games, and I imagine an NBA team could do pretty well. It certainly seems like a better destination than being LA’s third team. Of course, they also have a lot of seniors and other immigrants from around the country, so maybe they wouldn’t be that into a local team.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            jake,

            that is not accidental. miami was the original “vegas” when they opened up all the carpet joints down on the beach near hollywood. The old places down there became the models for what went in out in Vegas. Up till a decade or so, all the names of casinos had a “mirrior” in miami. I think they have all been torn down now, but the acts that would later play vegas all started out there.

            Like

      • Richard says:

        Hi Mick,

        Yep, my badd. I keep forgetting about BC.

        Like

  5. Kyle says:

    I would have preferred Chicago. I think most fans would have an easier and more enjoyable time traveling and staying in that city. I can’t pretend the fan experience is better out in the cold, but the elements are an iconic part of the conference identity to my family at least.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Traveling to Indy isn’t hard. Interstates come in from all directions (I-65, 69, 70, 74) plus multiple US routes. The airport is smaller, but that is both good and bad. There are plenty of hotels, too, since Indy regularly hosts big events including the Indy 500 which brings a lot more people to town.

      As for enjoying the stay, that’s all personal preference. Many will be there to eat, sleep and see the game, not be tourists. It is early December in the midwest after all. The proximity of hotels and restaurants to the game in Indy are a bonus for them. Plus, big cities are not for everyone. Many people will enjoy the smaller size of Indy.

      Like

  6. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Tigers!

    Like

  7. greg says:

    I got sucked into Too Big To Fail.

    Go Hawks!

    Like

  8. Really insightful article from SportsBusiness Daily that ties into some previous discussions we’ve had here about TV sports rights (along with a ton of info on the statuses of various pro and college sports deals):

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/06/06/In-Depth/Rights-Fees.aspx

    Like

    • David Brown says:

      I am really interested in seeing what the payout for the US Open Tennis will be. Like most Americans, I do not watch the sport, and it is essentially a dead zone as far as American Players are concerned. There is not a single player (Except the Williams Sisters and Federer), that I would spot if they approached me on the street (And even they better be carrying rackets). If I am CBS, and I have a choice of showing Federer/Nadal or Carolina/ Oakland (As bad a 4PM NFL match-up as you can find), I am going FOOTBALL. Which is why the US Open contract is interesting. If they can get an increase in fees for that sport, then you know that this is essentially a BULL MARKET for TV sports, and despite falling ratings, even MLB, the Tiger-less PGA Tour and Big East Conference will be doing well.

      Like

      • @David Brown – To be fair, about the only thing that would be guaranteed to get a better rating than Oakland vs. Carolina is the BCS National Championship Game. Even the worst NFL games outdraw even the best of what other sports have to offer in the US. I would put tennis on kind of the same tier as hockey in terms of TV attractiveness (and the ratings generally bear that out). It’s not a great mainstream property anymore, but not quite as much of a niche product (at least the major tournaments) as you make it out to be. The lack of a great US men’s competitor (Andy Roddick was the closest thing in recent years and he’s not in the same universe as Sampras or Agassi) is certainly a current drag here. At least Federer and Nadal can still draw casual interest in the US (I always make time to watch them play). I have doubts that Novak Djokovic, who looks like the next great player, can do the same.

        Anyway, the NHL got a good raise (although when compared to the old ESPN deal prior to the 2005 lockout, it actually isn’t that much of an increase). The US Open will likely do fine since, like golf, the very wealthy audience makes it worth it for the TV networks even if there are lower total viewers.

        Like

  9. duffman says:

    I think they picked Indy because the odds of IU being in the game is slim, so there is no home feild advantage 😉 I think Lucas is good choice as I must agree with Frank that wind coming of the lake can cut throught any clothing. I hate to say that there is a fanbase that is aging and less happy to shell out a big price to freeze their a$$ off. It is one thing when you are 20, but way different if you add another half century on that 20.

    I like Conseco for basketball, and it is easier for me to see games there, but if they rotate Chicago I can live with that. If IU got knocked out I would still see a tourney game in Conseco, but I probably would not if the game is in Chicago. Selling excess seats to the locals might be harder in Chicago with all the other things competing for the same entertainment dollar. When they do play in Chicago I think a FtT courtesy room might be a cool idea!

    Like

    • StvInIL says:

      Duffman, its been a while. I think that article works for you personally and a lot of people period. But over all not significantly. Why? Well I have live in and around Chicago for decades and it’s been probably close to 3 of them since there has been a blackout for any NFL games in this city. And if you are a believer in Global Climate Change, as I am, you will note that the weather here is not getting any milder. We have been getting hotter in the summer and longer more precipitous in the winters. Someone, perhaps not you, will pay and come to sit in those seats on the lake in December.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I’m confused, what does the NFL have to do with this? Nobody doubts the Bears can sell out Soldier Field for a long scheduled December game, even at night (note that sell out does not always equal full attendance). I’m sure the B10 could sell out SF for the CCG, too. That’s not the same as being the best site for the B10 CCG, though. Why make a suboptimal decision just to appease Chicago residents?

        Like

        • StvInIL says:

          Well for maybe just a silly reason? Because it maters? Not to be rude or provincial for the sake of being either. The big ten does not have a large viewing audience that owes its thanks to l Chicago audience. So too does any TV television numbers. Maybe Chicago does matter over Indianapolis. That being said, Indianapolis will be a great venue to see a game, while Chicago would be a better place to visit as a total package.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Is there any indication game location would significantly impact TV numbers? I’m guessing the only thing that would make a big difference to Chicago viewing is the lineup.

            Chicago is a better city for a prolonged visit, sure. I think Indy is the better game site, though.

            Like

          • jj says:

            I just don’t like domes. it could be in a dome in the wonka factory and it would kind of suck.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            You don’t have to like domes personally to think Indy was the right choice for the B10.

            Like

      • duffman says:

        StvInIL,

        Good to see you again! been wondering where you were. I agree, as fan bases need young blood. I guess I wonder in the age of texting and big screen TV’s if the next generation will be as rabid for live attendence. Who really knows, but it seems they are more comfortable watching it on TV.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          That’s why they are putting in massive screens like at JerryWorld, isn’t it? To replicate the HDTV experience?

          With the cost of attending game ($X for travel and lodging if needed, $75-100 per person for tickets/food/parking/etc) and all the hassles (travel time, drunks, poor seats, crowded bathrooms, traffic, overpriced food, maybe watching your team lose, missing other games), sitting in a climate controlled room in a recliner with cheap snacks and a big HDTV and the ability to watch all the games sounds pretty good.

          Watching the marching band only carries so much intrinsic value.

          Like

  10. Brian says:

    http://www.cowboysrideforfree.com/2011/6/7/2210208/introducing-the-sb-nation-conference-re-draft-project

    Over at SBNation, they are starting an interesting series. Over the next few weeks they will hold a draft to select 6 conferences of 12-16 teams. Six bloggers will act as conference commissioners and select schools in a snake-style draft.

    The goal is to pick schools in the order of individual school value, as determined by the commissioners. Two things may NOT be considered – travel/geography and current conference alignments (rivalries for individual schools can be considered, though). You get all sports for the schools, too, which could make for some interesting choices.

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Odds of Rice being chosen in the 96? <10% I'd wager.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Unless someone decides to make an academic conference, they’re screwed. I doubt baseball will get much consideration in team choice.

        They may stop at 72, too. 16 is optional.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        @Brian-regarding your comment two up.

        You’ve obviously never seen Rice’s MOB (Marching Owl Band)!

        They are never boring. They needed a police escort to escape College Station one time (Aggies don’t have a sense of humour regarding their many traditions).

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I’ve seen some “highlights” of them. That style of band isn’t my cup of tea, but they seem to be good at it.

          I doubt anyone will base their conference picks on marching bands, but you never know.

          Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      That’d be a fun draft. It will be interesting to see the strategies each commish deploys. With a draft that doesn’t consider geography, national brands are much more important. A Nebraska or a Miami may be worth more, whereas a Georgia or an Oregon may be worth less.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I think they should allow trades, too. If one guy gets OSU and OU and another gets MI and TX, wouldn’t it make sense to possibly trade and get the rivalries?

        Like

      • Brian says:

        There would be a lot of strategy involved if you take the draft seriously. You need to list the 120 schools in order of independent value (to you), and then factor in up to 2 rivalries per school (if you get AL, AU becomes more valuable for example). Then you need to select in a way that maximizes the total value for you by getting other people to not take schools that you want.

        It will be interesting to read the goals of the different commissioners and see how successful they are. I also wonder if they’ll stick to a vision for their conference (academics are important too, all around athletic are important, only FB matters, only BB matters, whatever)

        I also think a slightly more plausible draft that does consider geography would be interesting. The overlap between the AQs (B12/SEC, SEC/ACC, ACC/BE, BE/B10, B10/B12) means a lot of shuffling would still happen except maybe for the P12. Also ND has no choice but to be included, making for some interesting midwest choices.

        Like

      • @Gopher86 – I think when they referred to not considering geography, they meant that travel distances between conference members should not be considered (i.e. a conference with Miami should not pass over drafting Washington on the basis of the travel distance between Miami and Seattle). However, an individual school’s own geographic location in terms of recruiting, TV market, weather and other factors are definitely part of the criteria.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Exactly so.

          Like

        • Jake says:

          I just “liked” an Oklahoma State blog on facebook. Anyway, looks fun. Hopefully my Frogs can go in the top 64, which would be the cutoff if that whole superconferences thing ever comes to pass. We’ll rate well on coeds, destination and ethics, at least. And historic success, if they ignore 1966-1983. My hasty guess for the first two rounds (I’m assuming independents are up for grabs as well?):

          1. Texas
          2. Ohio State
          3. Florida
          4. Alabama (tough choice at 3&4 – basketball ended up being a tiebreaker)
          5. Notre Dame
          6. Michigan
          7. USC (would have been a little lower, but they’re in LA, and that seems important in this exercise)
          8. Nebraska
          9. Oklahoma
          10. Penn State
          11. LSU
          12. Auburn

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Yeah, it’s hard to predict without knowing the philosophy of the commissioners. I suggested to them that they add trades, and the guy said they might if it’s not too late. Then TX/AU and AL/OU could make a trade to get their rivals, perhaps with compensation in a later round for the difference.

            Like

          • Here’s how I’d rank the top 12:

            1. Texas
            2. Notre Dame
            3. Ohio State
            4. Florida
            5. USC
            6. Michigan
            7. Alabama
            8. Penn State
            9. Oklahoma
            10. Nebraska
            11. Florida State
            12. Miami

            Basically, the “kings” of football that we talk about frequently would make up the first 2 rounds. After that, I’d envision that the schools that can deliver key TV markets and/or recruiting areas become more important. The “Big Six” basketball brands (Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, UCLA) would also likely get a boost.

            Like

          • Art Vandelay says:

            Here’s how I would rank the top 12:

            1) Texas
            2) USC
            3) Florida
            4) Ohio State
            5) Michigan
            6) Alabama
            7) Oklahoma
            8) Notre Dame
            9) Miami(FL)
            10) Florida State
            11) Nebraska
            12) Penn State

            The first time going through, I had Notre Dame at #10, but that wasn’t really fair. They might have the biggest football brand of every school, but at some point, they have to be knocked for decades of mediocrity, and an underdeveloped graduate school. Nebraska loses points for being in a crappy state and having mediocre academics. Arguably, I think both Michigan and Ohio State could be considered over Florida because the Gators’ lack a strong, long-term national brand name. They do have the recruiting grounds, state population, and national media exposure to warrant their high ranking.

            Like

          • Art Vandelay says:

            I think USC’s being undervalued. They are in the middle of the 2nd largest TV market, they have a killer national brand, they are in one of the most fertile recruiting grounds, not to mention they’re probably the easiest school to get recruits nationally, and they have tremendous academics. USC is the only school I could see possibly overtaking Texas at #1 overall.

            Like

          • @Art – My one hesitation with USC is that its fan base is pretty fairweather compared to all of the other “kings” except for Miami. If they were as loyal as ND, OSU or UF fans and could sellout their stadium in down periods (not just in championship seasons), I would’ve put USC as #2 after Texas for the reasons you stated.

            Like

          • Art Vandelay says:

            Frank – Maybe the biggest problem I have with putting Notre Dame in the top 5 is that they are no longer viewed by the current generation of recruits as a top notch football program. There has been an entire generation that has gone without seeing any dominance by the Fighting Irish. The media portrays them as snooty, and their advantage in recruiting in Catholic high schools is diminishing because most of the athletes playing for Catholic high schools aren’t even Catholic. From the academic side, they rank just about last as far as schools that would actively and happily work together with the other institutions in the conference. They bring a great brand, they bring a huge fanbase, but they bring little else.

            You’re right about USC’s fans, but with their inherent advantages that I already listed, I think that in today’s world, they aren’t going to be struggling for long periods of time.

            The more I think about Florida, the more I feel like they’re the riskiest school of my top 5. What happens if Miami(FL) and/or Florida State come to prominence again and Florida struggles against the LSUs, Auburns, and Alabamas of the SEC? They don’t have the longstanding brand that the other four have, or even as strong as Alabama, Penn State, Oklahoma or Nebraska.

            Like

          • M says:

            USC and Miami are two sides of the same coin. When they’re good, they seem to fit all the attributes. When they’re bad, they look second tier.

            Like

          • Art Vandelay says:

            The one amendment I would make to my top 12 is putting Penn State at 9 after Notre Dame, and Nebraska at 10. Miami(FL) and Florida State would be 11 and 12 respectively. They don’t really have those national brand names that Penn State and Nebraska boast. Penn State should win the tie-breaker with Nebraska because while they might not have quite as prominent a brand, they are significantly better academically.

            Like

          • Jake says:

            @Art – history is pretty much the only thing Florida doesn’t have. Market, recruiting ground, recent sustained success, rabid fans, even academics – given a longer tradition of winning national titles and Heisman’s, and I’d be tempted to put them ahead of tOSU. Hard to beat Texas. Although, those crowds in Austin were looking pretty weak towards the end of last season. Don’t think that would happen at Florida.

            I’m pretty comfortable with where I put USC. The tradition and market will keep them high in the rankings. A larger and more rabid fanbase and they would be a top 4.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            I’d rank PSU higher than Jake, Art, and Frank, putting them alongside OSU in the top 5, considering that they’re the premier brand in the northeast.

            Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      If it’s 72 (6×12) teams, what are your last four in and last four out?

      Like

      • Jake says:

        Interesting question. There are 67 BCS conference teams (or there will be when TCU joins the BEast in 2012 – 12+12+12+12+10+9, right?), plus Notre Dame. Then BYU would be in, for sure. That’s 69 (the first time BYU has made that number without Brandon Davies’ help), leaving three … Boise is next, I suppose. Last two are tough. Houston for the market, maybe. SMU has market and academics (and, I’ll admit, co-eds). UCF, ECU, Memphis and the other usual suspects from C-USA are there. The MWC has a few other options. Fresno, UNLV, San Diego State, maybe Hawaii. Military academies for the tradition, ethics and academics? Not so much for the coeds. They’ve got some fit ladies, but I don’t think Playboy has ever done a girls of the Academies issue.

        Of course, that’s assuming the BCS conference teams all get taken first. Just how valuable is Wake Forest, particularly to a conference that already has UNC, Duke and/or NC State? Does Washington State get left out?

        Like

  11. Eric says:

    I kind of with it was Chicago and Indianapolis switching football instead of the other way around. Maybe that would mean some non prime time games, but I could live with that.

    Like

  12. herbiehusker says:

    add

    Like

  13. M says:

    I’ve been to a late December game at Lambeau and walked back to where I was staying through a foot of snow. I wouldn’t trade that experience for any game in a dome, but I recognize that championship games are more about aging boosters and corporate sponsors. Indianapolis was the right decision.

    Like

    • jj says:

      I’d take a game outside in antartica over sitting with 80,000 to 100,000 sweaty, fat bastards in August/September in just about anywhere south of ohio.

      Like

  14. Indy is probably not the best choice in any single cetgory, but when you add it all up –indoor, proximity to schools, closeness of stadium to hotels and restaurants, etc. etc.– it really is the only logical choice.

    It’s also nice to have the game in a city with only a 7% sales tax instead of Chicago’s absurd 10%… oh wait, they lowered it to 9.75. That’s much better….

    Like

  15. Nostradamus says:

    Comcast wins the Olympic rights. Probably the best outcome for college conferences.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The fee didn’t go up much, at least. Maybe they can break even over this deal. They spent $2.2B for 2010 and 2012 and already lost $200M and expect similar numbers for 2012. Now they get 4 games for $4B+. The 2016 summer games in Rio should help since the time difference is much smaller. The other 2 sites are unknown, but 2018 will also be way out of sync with the US leading to more ridiculous tape delay from NBC.

      Like

  16. Brian says:

    http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2011/6/7/2209965/its-not-plagiarism-if-you-link-to-it-now-accepts-correspondence-via

    Despite the new TV deal that removes the exclusive 3:30 ET window for ESPN, Iowa already has 3 11 AM CT starts scheduled with 8 games TBD. Two are B10 games (vs IN, @ NE), too. There may be fewer 11 AM starts with the new deal but apparently there will still be a lot of them.

    To be fair, there isn’t much choice. You can’t make the B10 ET teams always play at 12 ET to free up the 2:30 CT slots for the CT teams since late afternoon is the more desirable TV slot.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      Yeah you still have at least 1 ESPN slot a week at 12/11c and you’ll still have at least 1 BTN slot a week there as well. On an average in conference week (not factoring in opponents) you’ve got at least a 1/3 chance of kicking off in the morning slot.

      Nebraska now knows 8 of its 12 start times and the only 11:00 kickoff is the Iowa game and I’m not sure if I’d technically count that or not.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Let’s be honest. The B10 and the networks aren’t going to waste NE’s first year(s) in the B10 on the 11 AM slot. That’s where you stick MN, NW and IL games that nobody wants to see.

        I say IA does count, despite being Black Friday (will it be Red Friday every other year?).

        Like

        • M says:

          Northwestern has 3 night games already (of 5 announced). Take that and stick it where nobody wants to see.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            NW has 7 times set according to fbschedules.com:
            3 at night (MI, @ IA, PSU) all in a row
            3 at 11 (@BC, @IL, @IN)
            2:30 @ Army

            Do you notice how the times are largely related to the opponents? Don’t you think some of those other 5 will be at 11, like maybe some of Eastern IL, Rice and MN?

            BTN night games are also a decent way to hide games versus national coverage on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2.

            Prestige rank for a given start time:
            ABC > ESPN > ESPN2 > BTN

            1. ABC 8PM
            2. ABC/ESPN family at 3:30
            3. ABC/ESPN family at 12
            4. ABC/ESPN family at 11
            5. BTN at night
            6. BTN at 2:30/3:30
            7. BTN at 12
            8. BTN at 11

            Like

          • M says:

            The nonconference road games don’t fall under the television contract so I did not include them in the discussion. The BC game is slated for the U, which presumably is higher than the BTN for that slot, especially considering that BTN will likely be going 5 wide that day.

            A night game is never a hiding of anything. A night game is the showcase event for whatever channel it’s on. In terms of exposure I would put a BTN night game ahead of an 11am game on ESPN, when there are a huge number of other games available (often with 3-4 on BTN alone).

            As far as opponent selection, Iowa has 3 announced times: a night game against Northwestern, an 11am against Indiana, and 11am Black Friday vs Nebraska. Penn State has two announced times: an 11am vs Purdue and a night game vs Northwestern. Michigan has 3 announced times: an 11am against Purdue, and night games against Notre Dame and Northwestern. They had opportunities to put other teams in these evening slots and they chose NU. Obviously the game against Eastern Illinois will likely not be in such a position, but I doubt UNL-Chattanooga or the Michigan-Directional Michigan will do any better.

            Don’t you have better things to do than unwarranted bashing of Northwestern? Did the OSU boosters get sent home until the NCAA leaves town?

            Like

          • greg says:

            Iowa actually has six announced game times. Five at 11am, and the 6pm vs. NW.

            Ferentz wants as little visibility as possible. He prefers dull 11am kicks, he avoids publicity, Iowa always seems to be last in the BTN spring roadtrip lineup, etc. It drives a lot of fans crazy.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Eastern IL game’s going to be at 2:30.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            M,

            It’s neither unwarranted nor bashing. NW has a small fan base due to their size and isn’t a big draw for neutral fans either. They are more successful than their following would suggest, and it will probably take a long period of success to change their perception especially outside of the B10 footprint. Because they aren’t a strong draw on their own, their TV slots are often largely dependent on the opponent. A strong opponent helps them get a better slot while a weak opponent leads them to a worse slot. Every school faces that to some degree, but it is more pronounced for some than others.

            What I said was that 11:00 was where you stick games from MN, IL and NW that people don’t want to see. I didn’t mean that every NW game fit that category, but games like NW/MN, NW/IL and NW/IN. I would have included IN and PU in my list but they are on ET and so would play at 12, not 11.

            As for your statement, while the B10 doesn’t control the road OOC games you can’t ignore them when stating 5 times have been set. Seven, not 5, have been set, and the OOC games are part of the story. I’d agree ESPNU > BTN, but it’s close since both have a more limited distribution. The night game is the premier slot, but that means different things for different networks. The BTN at night might be premier for the BTN (depends how many games are in each time slot on the BTN) but is well down the list of B10 options.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            “Because they aren’t a strong draw on their own, their TV slots are often largely dependent on the opponent”

            That’s your theory, Brian. The limited TV ratings data I’ve been able to see for Northwestern (bowl games) suggest that NU draws above its weight on TV.

            In any case, as I’ve already stated, the Eastern IL game is on at 2:30. We’ll have to see when the Rice and Minny games are played to see just how well you understand how college football games are slotted.

            Like

          • M says:

            Brian,

            The Northwestern fan base has plenty of problems, but the television schedules for next year completely contradict your assertion that the NU games will be stuck at 11am on BTN because nobody wants to see.

            The only game I’ve seen confirmed as a BTN early game is OSU-Toledo, the same day that NU-Eastern Illinois is at 330EDT. Presumably, NU gets a later game because everyone wants to see the EIU powerhouse for themselves.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I’m so sorry for forgetting the billions of ardent NW fans worldwide who are constantly clamoring for more NW football games on TV. ND is clearly a distant second in local, national and international appeal. How could I forget that the rest of the conference quakes in the shadow of the TV juggernaut that is NW football and just hopes to appease them enough that they don’t go independent and cause the B10 to lose their valuable TV deals? I can’t apologize enough for making such a silly mistake. It won’t happen again.

            Like

          • M says:

            Don’t be a whiny brat when you say something demonstrably wrong and someone points it out.

            Again, 6 of Northwestern’s games are definitely not the BTN 11am slot. I doubt any other Big Ten team can say that at this point. Two of the remaining games (Nebraska, MSU) are unlikely to be as well. Either the television selectors want Northwestern more in the afternoon and evening or Willie is holding them at gunpoint in an undisclosed location.

            Like

          • StvInIL says:

            Sounds like Brian just has a bug up his arse over NW. NW does not decide the time slots, the networks do. Personally I would like it if they would listen to you Brian so that I can see my wildcats when at the time A college football game should be played. Between 12:00 and 3:00 PM. I must say that I cannot see where a strong opponent would not factor in to bumping up the timeslot. But there are plenty of options these days.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            StvInIL,

            Please let me summarize this thread to provide the proper context for what I have said. My reply to you follows the summary.

            The problem, from my point of view, is that some NW alums have an inferiority complex and see slights where there were none. In a post stating that the B10 wasn’t going to hide NE’s games the first couple of years at 11:00, I said 11:00 is where MN, NW and IL games nobody wants to see are put. As I clarified in a later post, after seeing misunderstanding from others, I was referring to the worst games on the schedules of those teams (versus each other, IN and PU basically). I excluded NE, WI and IA due to their larger fan bases and ability to draw attention, and none of the other schools have 11:00 starts because they are eastern teams.

            M responded by saying NW had 3 of 5 announced start times at night.

            I corrected his facts by pointing out that in fact 7 start times were set, and while 3 are at night another 3 are at 11:00. I pointed out that NW’s night games were against their better opponents and the early games against the lesser ones, and suggested some of the TBA times might also be early based on the opponents. I then provided my ranking of the prestige of various start times, indicating that every ABC/ESPN start time was better than any slot on the BTN so that the BTN night slot is still a place to put less popular games since there are multiple national games to compete with.

            M clarified his previous post by saying he omitted the 2 OOC road games because the B10 didn’t control the TV slot (while a reasonable point, I disagreed with him in my response because I feel 3 early and 3 late is a significant difference from 1 early and 3 late). He also disagreed with my prestige rankings, putting a BTN night game ahead of ESPN at 11:00. That’s a perfectly valid opinion, so I didn’t argue although I disagree. M proceeded to compare the night game schedules of some other teams to NW as part of trying to prove how desirable NW is I guess. He finished by showing his inferiority complex again by describing my post as unwarranted bashing.

            At this point, greg chimed in by stating that IA had 5 11:00 starts and 1 6:00 start because Kirk Ferentz prefers to avoid the limelight and IA asks for early start times. I take his word for it, and this both takes up some of the 11:00 slots and frees up additional night slots for NW and other to fill. It is also similar to OSU choosing to avoid night games most of the time, so they play them on the road more than at home (2/3 on the road this year). This might make more night slots available for teams that might be a lesser TV draw than OSU (based on OSU turning down the option and then the other school being asked).

            My next post was a reply to M offering my clarification mentioned above. I explained that what I said was neither unwarranted nor bashing. I mentioned NW’s small size and fairly short history of success after a long down period as reasons why they didn’t attract as strong a following as their success would otherwise indicate (should be roughly on par with MSU). Rather than bashing, that is noting NW’s success and indicating the TV ratings should follow if they maintain their success. I mentioned that because NW isn’t a strong TV draw, their TV slot is often largely dependent on their opponent.

            Richard then joined the NW inferiority complex by complaining about my saying NW isn’t a strong TV draw, so their opponent often influences the TV slot. I will note that they aren’t a strong TV draw (in the B10, that’s OSU, MI, PSU and NE, and maybe WI, IA and MSU depending on the season). He claimed to have bowl ratings data that shows NW draws “above its weight,” whatever that is supposed to mean. However, I studied eight years of bowl game ratings for all teams a few months ago and posted my results here. I found NW to be as close to neutral as there was. They didn’t hurt ratings and they didn’t really help ratings (less than a 1% bump, which is less than the margin of error). I chose not to respond to him because based on past experience, the facts don’t matter to him on subjects like this.

            M made another post that showed he still misunderstood everything I had said and claimed there were facts contradicting me and supporting him. However, since I didn’t say what he seems to think I said, there is no point in talking to him any more either.

            So, I lavished praise on the almighty power that is NW to appease them and let it go.
            __

            All of that is to lead up to my reply to you.

            The networks have a lot of rules to follow when scheduling, with minimum and maximum appearance limits, no November night games and schools having preferences for certain start times (and sometimes the option to say no to a proposed start time). The ABC/ESPN family also have to balance commitments to several other conferences at the same time. That means not every game of every week is slotted in exactly the order of preference for networks looking to make money. They have to make some compromises to fulfill their deals and sometimes get stuck with the leftovers.

            Some rough evidence:

            CFN lists NW’s night games as:
            10/8 (vs MI) – #3/5 (behind OSU/NE & PSU/IA, way ahead of MN/PU & IL/IN)

            10/15 (@IA) – #3/5 (behind MI/MSU & OSU/IL, ahead of WI/IN & PSU/PU)

            10/22 (vs PSU) – #2/5 (behind WI/MSU, ahead of NE/MN, IL/PU & IA/IN with OSU and MI off)

            of the B10 games in those weeks (none made their top 13 B10 conference games of the season). The only other highly ranked game they have before November is the first week @BC and that’s an 11:00 start and not available to the BTN. Their other B10 games are IN and IL, and those both are 11:00 too. In fact, NW’s other B10 games rank 4/6, 6/6, 2/5 (@ NE), 5/6 and 4/6 (with an OOC game as 6/6). So NW isn’t playing in the best games, but their best games were picked for BTN night slots (where possible) because they were the best of what was available. Most other teams don’t have so many start times locked, probably because ABC/ESPN didn’t already release the bigger draws so far in advance and the BTN waits until later to decide on some of the 12:00/3:30 choices. This shows NW to be a lesser choice than the top 6, but ahead of the bad teams as they should be (not a strong draw, but not a weak one). It also makes them dependent on the opponent – top teams lift them up, bottom teams hurt them. The top teams aren’t hurt as much by a weak opponent.

            NW, like any school, has some say in their start times in that they can decline some night games and request early starts if they want them. And like I said, everyone gets a bump from a good opponent but it impacts some teams more than others. Tradition can also trump the match-up, such as OSU/MI often playing at noon.

            I’m with you on early starts. I’m glad OSU has resisted some night games, and I wish they would resist them all. They should always play in the afternoon and be done before you would need lights.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Brian,

            You said NU is neutral in TV bowl ratings. You also said that they aren’t a strong draw and their TV viewership is lower relative to their success and should be around MSU’s (which would be around the average of the B10, lower than OSU, PSU, UNL, Michigan, Wisconsin, & many Iowa). So how did the other B10 schools perform in TV bowl ratings?

            Also, you may want to lay off the unwarranted personal attacks (‘the facts don’t matter to him”), in part because they’re untrue, but mostly because they just make you look bad to anyone who can read.

            At some point, most people, when finding out that they have managed to annoy most if not all of a particular fanbase, may stop to reconsider whether they are as reasonable about a particular team and fanbase as they think they are, but I have faith that you’ll keep thinking that some of us NU fans have an inferiority complex rather than consider that others are right when they say you have a bug up you-know-where about NU. Carry on, Brian, Carry on.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            OK, I dug up your old bowl TV ratings data, and here it is:

            Michigan … 0.154
            Purdue … 0.125
            Wisconsin … 0.081
            Michigan State … 0.077
            Nebraska … 0.060
            Ohio State … 0.055
            Northwestern … 0.006
            Penn State … -0.016
            Iowa … -0.027
            Illinois … -0.117
            Minnesota … -0.203
            Indiana … -0.801

            Great work, BTW, but judging by this data, your statement that NU “isn’t a great draw for neutral fans” is rather suspect considering that we have a far smaller alumni base and smaller fan base than any other B10 school yet are middle of the pack in bowl TV ratings in the B10 (somebody, evidently, are viewing our games). You can’t say it’s solely because of recent success either, as PSU & Iowa are below us. For that matter, I’m surprised that OSU isn’t higher given both their massive fan base & success. Guess they’re not a big draw for neutral fans either.

            Finally, I got a kick out of your last post where you tried to make yourself appear to seem reasonable after saying stuff like “That(11AM)’s where you stick MN, NW, and IL games that nobody wants to see.” After looking at your own data, well, I’ll let the audience judge.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Richard,

            I’ll try to combine responses to both of your posts in one response.

            Post 1:

            You asked and then answered your own question about how other B10 teams did in the bowls.

            Your selective quote to remove context doesn’t make it untrue. I said based on past experience with you, you don’t care about the facts on issues like this. That is my past experience with you. If you see that as a personal attack, so be it. I’m sure there are lots of topics where facts matter to you, but not all topics close to NW football seem to be on that list. In my view, your fandom skews your vision of the topics and any facts are thus spun to suit your view. That’s OK, that’s what most fans do.

            I hate to break it to you, but I don’t consider you and M to be “most if not all” of the NW fan base. I know more NW alums in real life than that, let alone online.

            Post 2:

            Thanks for the compliment on the bowl data, but as I said when I posted it there are still plenty of problems with it because the sample size is small and so many factors impact ratings (other games on, time slots, match-ups, networks, etc).

            As for NW being a draw, there are many ways to look at the data. Yes, NW has a smaller alumni base, but they also get to share in the generic B10 fan base that will watch any B10 team play a bowl (especially if it’s against the SEC). Those aren’t what I consider neutral fans (they would be for a conference game, but not for a bowl). But remember, all I said was that NW wasn’t a strong draw. That doesn’t mean they aren’t an average draw. Drawing power isn’t all or nothing.

            As for schools that surprised you, I recall several people explaining circumstances that impacted a game or two for their schools. IIRC, PSU played TAMU in a bowl that faced stiff competition (undefeated Patriots playoff game maybe?). I think Iowa got hurt by playing GT in the Orange. The match up caused no buzz, so a bowl that usually pulls pretty big numbers suffered. OSU’s problem is that they played in so many BCS bowls. You can only increase the ratings so much when the baseline value is already really high. It’s not like most teams that make BCS bowls aren’t strong draws.

            Like

      • greg says:

        IA-UNL does count as an 11am game, but I think this is the only year it will be at 11am. I’m guessing the late agreement to play on that date is the only reason it wasn’t selected for 2:30pm. In the future, it will go back to the Nebraska 2:30pm usual start time.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I forget what the competition for the slots is. Don’t they usually show a dual BE game in the 3:30 slot? Maybe they’ll swap that next year.

          Like

          • greg says:

            http://www.lsufootball.net/tvschedule.htm

            This year its BC at Miami on ABC at 2:30pm, and ESPN family has two other Big East games that will be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 with time TBD.

            A while back I used the archives on that site and found that something like 6 of the last 8 Nebraska/Mizzou games were ABC 2:30, with the other two ABC 11.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            I think you are thinking of Nebraska/Colorado.

            Like

          • Nostradamus says:

            Nebraska vs. Colorado have held the 3:30 slot that Friday since Texas/A&M moved to Thanksgiving. Prior to that, the two games rotated noon/3:30.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Don’t they normally have 1 ESPN and 1 ESPN2 game at 11?

            Like

    • frug says:

      God I hated 11:00 AM starts when I was in school and I’m still not a fan.

      Like

  17. Tom Smith says:

    I don’t think Chicago will ever be a serious contender for B1G championship games unless they dome
    Soldier Field! What are the chances of that??

    Like

  18. StvInIL says:

    Gee, I congratulate all thefolks who are afraid of the weather in the Midwest in the winter. I guess I can also congratulate people from Arizona who think it’s too hot and people from Seattle who think it rains too much.

    I personally think it’s a mistake to not at least rotate this game every other year in Chicago.
    The game will become a plastic made for TV event that we deserve. If the weather is a legitimate concern why has not anyone complained about always playing an away game in the rose bowl I wonder?

    Like

    • RedDenver says:

      Agree completely. I’d like to see the game rotated. Why wouldn’t the B1G want to showcase some of the cities and venues in the region? As a fan, I’d like to see more than just Indianapolis.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Showcase to whom? The people that already live in the midwest? B10 fans from outside the footprint? They can see the cities whenever they want.

        All that is seen on TV is the useless blimp shot of the city and the game itself. The game has to be the focus, and Indy is known to do a good job staging big events.

        Like

        • RedDenver says:

          How about the fans going to the game? If all you care about is TV, then of course a dome makes the most sense. But I go to these games (and similarly the bowl games) for vacation. I’d like to travel to different cities and venues. I’m sure I’m not the only one. For example, in 2009 I went to see my Huskers play in the B12 CCG in Dallas and the Holiday Bowl in San Diego. I enjoyed both trips. The next year I didn’t want to repeat the exact same trips since the CCG and bowl game were in the exact same locations.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Chicago and Indy are less than 200 miles apart. You could easily visit Chicago for days and then pop down to Indy for the game (or games first, then visit). It’s not like Dallas and KC. None of the other cities were serious contenders because of their locations (too far from center and/or too close to a likely participant). Still, it wouldn’t be that hard to swing through any of the other cities for a few days before or after the game. The thing is, the B10 shouldn’t be concerned about your vacation plans. Staging the best game is their concern.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      You don’t have to be afraid of the weather to realize it is a dumb decision to play in Chicago, especially in the first few years. The SEC moved to Atlanta to avoid weather issues in Birmingham. The CCG is supposed to be a showcase for the conference, and nobody wants to showcase rain and snow. The last thing the B10 should want is to broadcast how bad the winter weather can be to potential recruits.

      Seattle doesn’t host a lot of solar cell competitions and Arizona has not been a great home for hockey. Maybe, just maybe, the weather is a factor.

      Have you considered that living near Chicago creates a bias for you? I’ve been to Chicago multiple times and feel no need to return. It’s a nice enough city if you’re into that sort of thing, I suppose. I could enjoy Indy at least as much, especially since you’re looking at a weekend trip focused on a game. It’s not a sightseeing trip or a week long trip.

      Eventually the game will probably be held in Chicago at least once. From the reports, they need to do a better job selling themselves as a cohesive whole to the B10.

      Like

      • StvInIL says:

        “Have you considered that living near Chicago creates a bias for you? “ Brian, ABSOLUTLY! Not that living in Indianapolis or there abouts would not? I definitely have a Chicago bias and have no reason to hide it or be ashamed of it. Looking forward to visiting Indi Brian. And I feel no need to knock it.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Sure living near Indy would, but that aren’t many of those on here and Michael moved.

          I’m just saying when you talk about how horrible Indy will make the game (plastic was your term, IIRC), it might be better to disclose that you live near Chicago (IL is a sizable state) and are not being totally objective.

          I understand Chicago people wanting the game, I just don’t think it’s in the best interests of the B10 to start off with it there.

          Maybe you should start a drive to install an actual playing surface in Soldier Field to help garner more support in the future. I think the NFL should fine the Bears $100k for every winter game they play on that crap.

          Like

          • StvInIL says:

            Brian by “platic” I was not slighting Indianapolis in particular. I would be consistent in applying it to anywhere the game is not played “ as it should be”. That would include Chicago. I am one who is glad that they did not create a domed stadium here. It’s just seem to me personally to be extremely ironic that the Big Ten , an iconic organization IN the Midwest would shy away from playing out in the elements. Equating it to being “French and G*Y” all of a sudden when this is what we have done proudly for so long. And will continue to do after the CCG. Even Minnesota has shed the dome. Would you not agree?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Yes, except the B10 stopped playing outdoors at night in winter a while ago. If they won’t do it in November, why would it suddenly be OK in December?

            I’d support Chicago under 2 conditions:
            1. It can’t be a night game. real football doesn’t need lights.
            2. They have to install a real field. That field is horrible.

            Unfortunately, I think the prime time slot is more important than playing outdoors.

            Like

          • MIFan says:

            Frankly, if you’re lucky enough to have your school playing in the championship game, you’ve got no cause to complain. I enjoy sitting in a warm house and watching everybody outdoors freezing their ass off at the game. If you don’t like the weather, don’t go; I guarantee someone else from your school will scoop up the ticket instead. A CCG at night in Chicago would still be played in front of an absolutely packed house, and would be more entertaining for me to watch at home if for no other reason than the satisfaction of watching everybody there freezing.

            Like

  19. Michael in Raleigh says:

    On a personal note: It’s a bit of a bummer to leave Indy just months before the Super Bowl AND the Big Ten championship game are coming to town, but it’s good to live closer to family.

    Like

  20. SH says:

    Both Indy or Chicago are good spots. But for the B10, Chicago is the more geographic center, and is certainly is the population center. It is the heart of the B10 like Atlanta is the heart of the SEC.

    And I hate hearing about the weather. Reminds me of all the writers who have complained about the Superbowl in NY. Yes a snowy cold-weather game may suck for a fan (though I doubt it since it is the championship game). But it would make great TV. Sure the football game may be sloppy, but a game played in the elements is much more compelling than a sterile game indoors. Could it affect recruiting and bowl games – I guess, but that is mere speculation and probably way overblown.

    I guess I understand wanting an indoor site for the first few games, and I may understand wanting a permanent home. But Chicago offers much more than Indy – in all aspects. The only thing it doesn’t offer is an indoor venue. And frankly, that only affects the people actually going to the game. But a championship game isn’t the superbowl. Most peole who go to the game are hardcore alumni. The B10 is not the ACC. Eventually play the game in Chicago. It has the potential for great television.

    Until then, I’m sure Indy will be a fine choice.

    Like

    • SH says:

      As a follow-up, isn’t this another reminder of how the city failed in its renovation efforts. They could have preserved Soldier Field as it was and used it for a soccer stadium and other purpsoses. And built a new domed (retractable roof) stadium for the Bears, that could have been used for NCAA title games, the B10 championship game, and at least 1 superbowl. I like outdoor football as much as the next person, but this was a poor use of public funds.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Their plans never made sense to me. Was it a lack of space combined with the historical status of SF that forced this travesty? It doesn’t seem like they got much bang for their bucks.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        The Cotton is not in the BCS and the Fiesta and Sugar are in primarily because of Dallas’s weather. It was hard to get people enthused to do Dallas in January. They had a number of cold weather games on January 1 and couldn’t get the financial backing that Phoenix and New Orleans generated. Appropriately for this discussion, the most famous was Joe Montana’s and ND’s icy comeback against UH on a day I was snowed into Chicago. When the plane finally took off, the game appeared to be over-deep in the 4th UH led 34-12. I was shocked when I landed and found out UH somehow lost.

        Chicago’s a great city to visit, but most of the fans are doing limited tourism. A football game on the lake in December? Its Indy, no contest. And with all the events Indy hosts, they are clearly doing something right.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Chicago and Indy are a 3 hour drive, so the geographic difference isn’t that major. While Chicago is the biggest city, I think you underestimate the amount of population to the east. Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and all the other people add up quickly. The population center is east of Chicago.

      NE – 1.8M
      MN – 5.3
      WI – 5.7
      IA – 3.0
      IL – 12.8

      IN – 6.5
      MI – 9.9
      OH – 11.5
      PA – 12.7

      40.6M live east of IL, 28.6 live west of IN. The OH/IN border would be much closer to a population split.

      Chicago is not the heart of the B10, despite having the HQ. Maybe the western states feel that way but I never got that sense from MI, OH or PA residents that I knew. Maybe it’s just that OSU/MI football axis (and IU/PU BB axis) that historically feels more like the heart.

      As for TV, I think snow games make for really bad TV. You can’t see the field, the teams play poorly and the announcers stop paying attention and start telling 30 year old stories about snow games. Maybe you find that compelling, but I don’t.

      You may call it speculation, but I’ve seen quotes from recruits from the south that went on visits to B10 schools and said they had never been so cold in their lives and would never return. Broadcasting even worse weather is not the way to entice players from FL.

      As for Chicago offering more, I think it mostly offers size and all the benefits and hassles that come with it. Indy is more compact and that has advantages for visitors new to the city. We’re not looking for vacation sites, but CCG sites. The game is the important thing and Indy offers a much better experience.

      Eventually it will probably be held in Chicago and that will be a bad decision. At least they are starting on the right foot.

      Like

      • Great post. The only compelling argument I heard for cold weather games is “It’s like the NFL playoffs and the Big Ten wants that association.” I think it’s true to some extent, but your reason far outweigh them. I think they keep it in Indy forever. Once it becomes ingrained (like the awful Leaders/Legends names will soon 😦 ) then it’ll be part of Big Ten fandom tradition forever.

        Like

      • StvInIL says:

        “but I’ve seen quotes from recruits from the south that went on visits to B10 schools and said they had never been so cold in their lives and would never return.”

        Then they say they want to play in the NFL. Interesting.

        Like

        • Jake says:

          You can buy a lot of long underwear on an NFL salary.

          Like

          • StvInIL says:

            and the underarmor is free to the jocks. so as I alluded to. Its a stupid empty argument for the shortsighted. I would prefer to attend school at well accredited institution up north that also has good football prospects than go to a school that more or less has the reputation of a football stadium with a school out back.

            Like

  21. Jake says:

    Quibble: Frank, your link is to a pic of the 2007 ACC title game in Jacksonville, not the 2009 game in Tampa. But the point stands.

    I like Indy as a permanent site, but I kind of wish they’d gone with Soldier Field for the first one. Just to sort of, you know, kick it off old school. LOS doesn’t seem big enough for the kind of crowd a BT title game might draw, but I guess they didn’t really have any better options. 70,000 could work, and creating scarcity isn’t a bad thing, I suppose. Chicago’s probably easier to travel to, but I’ve never flown to Indy (or been there at all, for that matter), so I’m not real sure about their airport situation.

    Moving the hoops tournaments doesn’t seem like a good idea. Also, Conseco can host both men’s and women’s, but somehow United can’t? Put both tourneys in the United Center every year. Having one site every year has turned the Big East tournament, and to a lesser extent the MWC tournament in Vegas, into pretty cool destination events. And it seems awfully cruel to drag the poor bands and spirit squads all over Chicagoland.

    The Pac-12 didn’t really have much choice. They aren’t as geographically compact as the BT or SEC, and if they picked, say, LA as their permanent site, but Utah and Oregon end up in the title game, well, good luck with that. Although those particular fan bases might be rapid enough to make the trip anyway. Moving the game to home sites was the only way they could guarantee a good crowd.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The weird thing is, Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field.

      As for travel, Delta has 8 daily non-stops from Atlanta to Indy as an example. Indy is the 49th busiest US airport (thanks to a lot of cargo traffic), ranked between Dallas Love and San Antonio. It’s not huge, but it’s not tiny either. They average over 150 passenger flights a day to 35 cities.

      I think the problem with WBB is it doesn’t sell enough seats to use the United Center so they get closer to capacity at a smaller site instead.

      Like

      • The main issue with the United Center is that with both the Bulls and Blackhawks already having to play a fairly lopsidedly compressed home schedule due to the infamous November Circus Trip and the less famous (but actually even longer) February Ice Show Trip, they don’t want to also lose the United Center for essentially two more weeks in March on top of all of that. Conseco Fieldhouse only has to schedule around the Pacers and some minor league hockey games and doesn’t have shows like the circus and ice show stay in town for nearly as long as Chicago.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Does the WBB tourney start that much earlier? I thought it was just a week. Regardless, I can see where Chicago would have more scheduling conflicts.

          Like

      • SideshowBob says:

        “The weird thing is, Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field.”

        I think this is a big point, as we are talking about something like an extra 9,000 seats. Plus, my impression is Lucas Oil has more luxury boxes than Soldier Field. The potential is there to make a lot more money via ticket sales in Indianapolis. And I suspect — could be wrong — that given that weather isn’t a factor, that you can actually charge more for tickets because demand will be higher. I think you’d draw from a greater pool of people (higher demand) having the game in a climate controlled environment. People will also be more likely to buy tickets in advance knowing weather won’t be a factor.

        Like

    • Soldier Field’s capacity is almost 10,000 less than Lucas Oil.

      Like

      • Jake says:

        Yeah, that’s why I think Indy is their best bet for a permanent site. Central location, biggest available neutral site stadium, etc. But if they wanted some extra fanfare for the first one, Chicago might not be a bad move. Then go indoors.

        Like

  22. Nostradamus says:

    A battle is brewing in Nebraska over the Big Ten Network. BTN wants basic carriage or is threatening to blackout the state.
    http://www.omaha.com/article/20110607/BIGRED/110609815#tv-dispute-may-force-nu-games-off-air-for-some

    Like

    • Jake says:

      This is a discussion? BTN gets basic carriage in Texas. At least on AT&T Uverse. Can’t imagine people in Nebraska would stand for paying extra to get that channel.

      Like

      • @Jake – It looks like it’s more of an issue about Nebraska cable providers that were previously paying the out-of-market rate (usually around $.10 per month per subscriber) for the BTN having to kick up to the in-market rate ($.80 or more). With this issue having been resolved in places that are much less rabid about college sports like Illinois and Minnesota, the BTN has a ton more leverage in Nebraska to basically name its price.

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          Yep this has to be one of the most one sided negotiations in the history of negotiations. The Big Ten Network/The Big Ten Conference/UNL have all the leverage in the world on this one.

          Like

        • SideshowBob says:

          Interesting to see from that article that the plan is to simply not put Nebraska games on the BTN but to use an alternative channel available only to providers who have agreed to a higher “in market” rate. It’s a nice way to force the hand of systems in Nebraska who, let’s face it, are going to cave. No way the go into football season not being able to carry 3+ Husker games.

          Like

        • StvInIL says:

          Frank, want to offer a discussion on the Teyrel Pryor move?

          Like

  23. jj says:

    Pryor’s leaving OSU.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I’d like to say it’s a shame, but it’s probably the best thing for everyone involved. OSU had enough QB issues trying to replace him for 5 games without him then coming back and taking the job. He can get a clean slate, too, since the NFL doesn’t care about cars and tattoos (but the bad decisions and throws will hurt him). As much negative press as he’s brought over the years, I still hope for his sake he matures and eventually earns his degree.

      Like

    • Richard says:

      Oh Canada?

      Like

    • M says:

      More bad stuff for OSU:
      http://sportsbybrooks.com/

      There’s photographic evidence of another player at the tattoo parlor

      Also, Pryor has deposited checks from someone who sells autographed merchandise on ebay. That someone was disowned by OSU a few months ago, which seems to indicate that they knew about it then.

      Like

      • jj says:

        Detroit sports radio was aflame with this earlier. People think um, msu and psu stand to gain. We shall see. Whatever happens it will be a helluva ride for the next little bit. Sparty on!

        Like

  24. Playoffs Now says:

    Pretty much a no-brainer to choose Indy over Chicago, especially since the latter has inexplicably failed to stop the increasing number of ridiculous ‘flash mob’ hate-crime attacks on random civilians. The latest being 2 doctors attending a convention in what should be a safe tourist area.

    Like

  25. duffman says:

    And now for something completely different:

    As StvInIL is back, it got me thinking of the historical over rated or under rated teams that I went through on FtT as it related to college football in its history. This reminded me of a side note I meant to post back then. It was about a football team that was a monster in the beginning but faded to obsurity. Here is some hints, can you name the team and school? (please guesses only, no google or other outside help – everyone is on the honor sysytem) 🙂

    a) played a 12 game season – very uncommon at the time
    b) beat every one of them, and only one of them scored on this team
    c) of the 12, 10 are D 1 schools today
    d) of the 10, 9 are teams in the power conferences
    e) the lone non power conference team was a former power team
    f) of the remaining 9 teams, they have 24 MNC’s (19 MNC’s after WWII) combined
    g) of the remaining 9 teams, all are in the top 50 teams of all time
    h) of the 9, 7 are in the top 25 all time
    i) of the 7, 3 are in the top 15 all time
    j) of the 3, 1 is in the top 5 all time
    k) at least 1 team is a “brand” and of at least half of the 12 opponents are “near” brands

    take your best guess….

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Sewanee, 1899

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Loki wins the prize. 9 of those games were on the road/neutral site, with 5 played over 6 days. However, Harvard (10-0-1, only allowing the Carlisle Indian school to score on them, tying Yale 0-0) and Princeton (12-1), are(/were?) acknowledged by folks to be the national champs that year, seeing as they dominated the schools in the toughest footballing region of the time (the northeast).

        Like

        • duffman says:

          loki,

          Rice has the smart people! If I had seen this without names I would have guessed Chicago and their legendary coach (ironic, as both Sewanee and Chicago went the opposite direction and deempahsized sports). Richard brings up the Carlisle Indian School and anybody who follows college football should read up on them for the historical football of the era.

          FWIW: here is that season, and some notes:

          10.21.99 Georgia 12–0 ==> SEC
          10.23.99 Georgia Tech 32–0 ==> SEC/ACC
          10.28.99 Tennessee W 46–0 ==> SEC – Lost to Sewanee & VT in 99′
          11.03.99 Southwestern Presbyterian 54–0 ==> founded by freemasons
          11.09.99 Texas 12–0 ==> SWC/B12 – Lost to Sewanee & Vandy in 99′
          11.10.99 Texas A&M 10–0 ==> SWC/B12 – Lost to Sewanee & UT in 99′
          11.11.99 Tulane 23–0 ==> SEC/CUSA – founder of the Sugar Bowl
          11.13.99 LSU 34–0 ==> SEC
          11.14.99 Ole Miss 12–0 ==> SEC
          11.20.99 Cumberland 71–0
          11.30.99 Auburn 11–10 ==> SEC – HC John Heisman only loss in 99′
          12.02.99 North Carolina 5–0 ==> ACC Reynolds went 9-0 in 98′

          * Tennessee, SW Pres, and Cumberland were the only HOME games
          * Outscored opponents 322 to 10 !!!!
          * 12 games with 11 shutouts (with brutal road schedule)
          * Beat John Heisman of Heisman Trophy fame
          * If played today it would be a brutal schedule (accounting for D III upgrades)
          * In 6 days travelled 2500 + miles (before planes) beating UT, TAMU, Tulane, LSU, and Ole Miss to achieve what is considered the greatest road trip in college football history

          Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            I only knew because l Last year my daughter applied to and was accepted at Sewanee, so I read up on their history. It’s one of the most beautiful campuses in the world.

            Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Loki – I’m looking forward to taking my daughter to visit Sewanee and Vandy next month.

            A couple factors working in Sewanee’s favor is that their mascot is a Tiger and the school colors are purple and gold.

            Like

          • uncle buck says:

            loki and alan,

            what is the school noted for? It is one that you about, but never really registers.

            loki,

            ha ha, now you will find yourself watching ND sports! I find I watch many schools I never did just because of the next generation going there.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Cumberland was the school that lost 222-0 to Heisman’s GT team around 1915 or 16.

            A few months back we talked about the book “Strange but True Football Stories” that at least a couple of us had read as kids. There’s a story about that game and another about the Praying Colonels from Centre who had a great team for a couple of years beating Harvard, in addition to the story about the Snow bowl between Michigan and Ohio St.

            Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          Richard, my daughter loved Sewanee but hated Vandy. Said it was too preppy and greek for her. At Sewanee she did like the idea of the girls wearing dresses or skirts and the boys wearing ties. Not sure what she would think now after wearing sweats and t-shirts for the last year…

          Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          I said Richard, I meant Alan…

          Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      chicago?

      Like

    • Jake says:

      Centre College Prayin’ Colonels?

      Like

    • jj says:

      Princeton?

      Detroit Lions?

      Like

      • uncle buck says:

        jj,

        detroit 🙂

        I know they are down now where they seem like a college team, but hopefully things will pick back up.

        Like

    • Richard says:

      I would have guessed Chicago, though I heard somewhere that UPenn once won 12 games in a season (however, it’s unlikely that they’d have played 10 who are currently FBS; possibly 10 who are Div I, though).

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Well, UPenn did go 12-0 in 1894, allowing 20 points the who season (while scoring 366), but they also went 14-0 in 1895, allowing 24 points while scoring 480 (beating both Virginia & Lehigh 54-0; I guess they didn’t believe in taking a knee).

        Like

        • Richard says:

          BTW, Chicago, under Stagg, played 24 games in the 1894-95 season (going 15-7-1; 7-4-1 against other colleges/medical schools).

          Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      I was going to guess TCU.

      Like

      • Jake says:

        @Gopher – appreciate the thought, but TCU’s only had two undefeated seasons, and one of them was last year. Other was ’38, when we went 11-0. Our defense was good that year, but not quite 11 shutouts good.

        Like

  26. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    I’ve been to a few SEC championship games and plenty of bowl games. From my personal experiences, bowl games are vacations and CCGs are business trips. Most of the time, you have less than a week to plan a trip to a CCG.

    Like

  27. Richard says:

    I would have guessed Chicago, though I either looked up or heard somewhere that UPenn once won 12 games in a season (however, it’s unlikely that they’d have played 10 who are currently FBS; possibly 10 who are Div I, though).

    Like

  28. ccrider55 says:

    et tu Texas? (shock)
    http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/288691-mccoys-wife-suggests-culture-of-violations?eref=sihp&sct=hp_bf2_a4

    not picking on them in particular. Likely happening many places but will get more attention where success is expected and the light shines the brightest.

    Like

    • M says:

      Apparently Michael Wilbon pretty much directly said that he had taken NU athletes out for “dinner” on PTI today. They’re coming for us all.

      Like

  29. Patrick says:

    @FRANK – I found these comments interesting. Goes back to three topics discussed last year. The increase in marketable football games, the addition of the conference championship game, and the amount of hand over fist money the BTN is going to make. Also touches on FOX really having a vested interest in the success of the BIG TEN now, and that may lead FOX to actively promote games, and carry Saturday night prime-time games in the future (after the ABC deal runs out). They did cancel COPS, what else would they run on Saturday?

    “We have more assets because we have more games with Nebraska in,” Delany said. “There is an increased number of games and an increased value of games.”
    How much more valuable?
    “A little bit more,” Delany said.
    Will you say how much?
    “I cannot,” Delany said, at which point Nebraska Athletic Director Tom Osborne drew a big laugh by chiming in: “He isn’t going to say how much in front of me.”
    Said Delany: “A lot of conferences announce how much money they make every year. We don’t. You never see the number from us on any rights-fee deal.”

    http://www.omaha.com/article/20110608/BIGRED/706089799

    Still love the blog Frank!

    Like

  30. M says:

    Just for fun, here are the ratings for NCAA 12:

    http://traditionsportsonline.com/ncaa-12-team-ratings-revealed

    Now preseason team rankings are useless or nearly so. Preseason prestige rankings however give another data point for that discussion (plus I can never resist a large pile of numbers)

    The Level 6:
    Alabama
    Auburn
    Florida
    LSU
    Ohio State
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Penn State
    Texas
    USC

    It looks they bumped up the title game teams up a bit. Other than that, no particular surprises.

    The Level 5:
    Boise State
    Florida State
    Georgia
    Iowa
    Miami
    Michigan
    Nebraska
    Notre Dame
    TCU
    Virginia Tech
    Wisconsin

    TCU is the highest ranked (soon-to-be) Big East team. Nothing too shocking here either.

    Selected others:
    BYU 4
    Michigan State 4
    Missouri 4
    South Carolina 4 – Really?
    Tennessee 4 – lower than it would have been a few years ago
    Texas A&M 4
    Utah 4
    ECU 3 – All of the Big East “usual suspects” got a 3
    Houston 3
    Illinois 3
    Northwestern 3 – I’m actually rather pleased that Northwestern is ahead of 10 BCS schools and tied with 23 others
    Pittsburgh 3
    Purdue 3
    Rutgers 3
    UCF 3
    Indiana 2
    Minnesota 2
    Rice 2
    UCLA 2 – This seems extremely harsh.
    Army 1 – Even as bad as they have been, Army still packs more of a prestige kick than FIU and Western Kentucky.
    Washington State 1 – Only BCS conference 1

    Overall these rankings seem to focus a little bit more on recent performance but mostly agree with the other discussions.

    Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      They’ve been getting a lot of heat from putting Oregon that high, considering they’ve never won the big game.

      Like

  31. gregenstein says:

    ***This is off top topic***

    Frank – Any word on how deep the Ohio State sanctions are going to be? If they get the “Death Penalty”, does that start the conference carousel moving again?

    Like

    • No. Even if Ohio State did get it, that wouldn’t effect their position in the Big Ten or push expansion. The death penalty meanwhile is very unlikely to be applied anymore (in my opinion) given the changed TV landscape.

      Like

    • Vincent says:

      Do you honestly think Ohio State would receive the “death penalty”? This is not Southern Methodist, a relatively small private university — this is a huge state university with an enormous fan base (which thus would have a lot of legislators involved). If the NCAA even tried to invoke it against Ohio State, the reaction would be fierce (especially from ESPN/ABC, which would lose one of its college football meal tickets). Face it, where the NCAA is concerned, Ohio State is “too big to fail.”

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Do people have any sense of perspective? Do they remember how bad the problems at SMU were? They institutionalized paying lots of players, both to come there and then kept them on a payroll. It went all the way to the board of trustees and president. After getting probation for it, they planned to continue the payments until every player involved graduated. They got caught again and got the brand new death penalty.

      Nobody has been busted since that came close to that level of violation, certainly not USC or OSU.

      OSU has a lying coach and a handful of players trading gear for tattoos. None of the car deals have been proven to be an issue. Many of SI’s claims have been directly refuted. Until the NCAA says otherwise, the only actual violations are the 5 players and Tressel. Wait until everything is wrapped up to see the total picture rather than speculating based on rumors.

      Like

      • gregenstein says:

        What fun is a live blog if we can’t speculate on rumors???

        Honestly, no, I don’t think Ohio State will get the death penalty. I was more asking what penalties are appropriate given that this appears worse than the USC/Reggie Bush “scandal” that cost them a bunch of scholarships and a bowl ban for a what, 2 years?

        The cover-up here is the bigger problem for Ohio State, the not the “ink for ink” trading in the dark alley. That stuff probably happens at every University. I don’t know about all the cars and such, but if Pryor was dumb enough to take checks, the University should have known about it.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          You can speculate on rumors all day, but even if every rumor was true OSU wouldn’t get the death penalty. People forget how much SMU got caught doing, and the NCAA is less likely to use it after seeing how much it hurt SMU.

          I don’t see OSU as being worse than USC based on the current allegations. USC had 1 player getting 6 figures worth of benefits, multiple sports involved and an AD that did not cooperate. OSU had small benefits (which the NCAA has dealt with already) and a coach running a cover up. The athletic department has worked with the NCAA all along and only football is involved.

          Like

  32. WildBill says:

    Agree with everything in the article, one addition though: anyone that has been to a Browns game in December/January (not to many recently in January) can also agree with the cold wind whipping off the lake.

    Like

  33. Steve says:

    In the interest of “equal time”, here is the Notre Dame throwback uniform for the night game at Michigan.
    http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/061011aaa.html

    Like

  34. Nostradamus says:

    1 Year anniversary of Nebraska being invited to the Big Ten.

    Like

  35. Mike says:

    http://huskerextra.com/sports/football/article_29a14e35-498f-5744-9dd0-ab3e81b85531.html

    A review of Nebraska to the B1G.


    The common narrative that developed was that this was largely a standoff between Nebraska and Texas.

    Asked what he thought the biggest misconception of the whole process was, Perlman said: “There are still people that would like to make everything that happens about a Texas-Nebraska rivalry or bitterness. Maybe I’m naive and there’s this big conspiracy down in Austin to get the University of Nebraska, but I don’t believe it.

    “Throughout the Big 12 conversations, we were most often aligned with Texas in terms of revenue sharing, in terms of the direction the conference could go.”

    There no doubt was a rivalry between the fan bases, which only grew after a second was put on the clock in the 2009 Big 12 Championship Game. But in the board rooms, Perlman didn’t see any great animosity.

    Perlman notes that, just like Texas, Nebraska was interested in possibly setting up its own television network. Perlman thinks a Husker network might have netted the school an additional $3 to $5 million a year.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Kind of interesting comments since it was largely Pearlman’s narrative. He talked more about Texas in his press conference than he did joining the Big 10.

      I guess it was all just lawyer talk to try to reduce the exit fee. He doesn’t seem to understand that people listen to him. Words matter. Images matter. There have been some US Presidents that have had the same problem.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        It doesn’t seem that Perlman is the best politician out there (re: recent AAU actions).

        Luckily for him, university presidents have to wear many more hats, and some of them are more important.

        Like

  36. ccrider55 says:

    Congratulations to Penn State head wrestling coach Cael Sanderson, 2004 Olympic champ, who has come out of competitive retirement to win a spot on the U.S. team to the world championships in Turkey (with an eye to the 2012 Olympics). I understand this was done with administration blessing, and even encouragement.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Any word on why he chose to get back in? Why did he retire in the first place? Tired of winning?

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        He addresses that fairly well in this SI article from last week, prior to the trials.
        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/brian_cazeneuve/06/08/cael-sanderson-comeback/index.html#ixzz1Ol7J4oBU

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I guess that article may not exactly address fully why he quit competing. Many elite competitors take a year off following the Olympics, and he had responsibilities as an ISU assistant. In 2006 he became the Cyclones head coach at 26 or 27 years old. He probably wanted, and was “encouraged” by admin. to concentrate full time on that effort. I am aware of only one other HC (Chris Bono, UT Chat.) in the last 25 years to actively try to continue to compete, and only for about a year after being hired (don’t think the admin there liked the idea much, but allowed it for a bit). Interestingly he was a Cyclone wrestler in college also.

          Like

  37. Brian says:

    Any thoughts on MLB talking realignment, going to 2 15 teams leagues with no divisions? The rumored team to switch leagues would be Houston, to build a rivalry with the Rangers and because it could be a condition of sale.

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I don’t like expanding playoffs. I’d prefer 2 divisions in each league with division champs plus the 2 best records qualifying. Play best of 7 in all series (this would expand the number of games to be televised without watering down the importance of the regular season any more, ie NBA, NFL). Seed on record only.

      Like

    • @Brian – I’m all in favor of moving a team to the AL, although I don’t understand the point of getting rid of the divisions since they would be logically set up with 6 5-team divisions. Of course, I don’t understand a lot of what Bud Selig proposes.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I think there have been a lot of complaints about the different strengths of certain divisions and the impact on everyone. Why should a bad AL West team lock a spot when NY, Boston and TB are fighting for the AL lead, for example? Plus, I’m guessing a lot of teams would like to see the big draws come by more often.

        Like

        • Craig Z says:

          It’s kind of like the Big East and ACC getting teams in the BCS while some deserving teams from other conferences get left out.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      Colorado or Arizona make the most sense if they keep the same general structure, especially since both are relatively new franchises. Then you have the following pairs generating interest in each league in the region:
      Yankees-Mets
      Red Sox-Phillies
      Orioles-Senators
      Tampa Bay-Florida
      Cleveland-Ciny
      Sox-Cubs
      Tigers-Pirates
      KC-St. Louis
      Minnesota-Milwaukee
      Texas-Houston
      Angels-Dodgers
      Oakland-SF
      SD-Seattle
      Colorado-Arizona or vice versa
      Toronto-Atlanta as the remaining teams.

      You could schedule 12 games vs. your division, 9 vs. the rest of your league, play your rival 3 times every year and play a 3 game series vs. half the remaining teams in the other league each year to get to 162.

      Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        Sea-SD natural regional rivals? (except for the 1200+ miles and multiple teams beteen)

        I’d suggest Seattle-Colorado and Az-SD would make more sense in an AL-NL matchup.

        Like

      • @bullet – I also think it makes more sense, but just as we need to think like university presidents for college realignment, we have to think like team owners for pro sports realignment. Unless you move to the AL East (where you get tons of dates with the Yankees and Red Sox), it’s much more attractive to be in the NL, where the Cubs and Cardinals are big draws in the Central and the Dodgers and Giants are the main draws in the West. Their AL counterparts (i.e. White Sox, Angels, A’s) aren’t anywhere near as popular. That’s why Bud Selig jumped at the chance to move the Brewers to the NL Central.

        As a result, no current NL owner is going to willingly move to the AL unless it’s to the AL East. That’s why it’s plausible that making the approval of the Astros sale contingent upon a move to the AL makes more sense if MLB wants a team to switch leagues (as they have complete control over a new owner on this type of issue, while current owners can and will make a stink about it).

        Like

      • Brian says:

        How about moving Milwaukee back to the AL where they belong?

        Like

        • @Brian – I’d personally like that, but Selig will never let that happen to his old team. The Brewers now get a virtually guaranteed 12 (or as many as 18) sellouts per year from traveling Cubs and Cardinals fans in the NL Central. None of the AL Central fans travel anywhere close to those two (and I say this as a massive White Sox fan). That’s why the Brewers literally couldn’t move to the NL Central fast enough when they were provided the opportunity.

          Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      I really don’t care which team moves to the AL, but am hopeful that no team switches leagues. The result of numerically balanced leagues is season-long interleague play, which I am not in favor of.

      One change I’m 100% in favor of is scrapping divisions altogether and go back to a pre-1969 no-division balanced league schedule. I’m an Oriole fan that thinks its fine for the ChiSox and Rangers to play the Yanks & BoSox the same number of games as us. Playing a balanced League schedule is fair. Take the the top 4 (or 5) teams in each League and play them off at the end of the season.

      If a NL team does switch to the AL and interleague play is retained, here’s what a schedule could look like:

      1. 140 League games and 22 interleague games;
      2. Each team plays every other team in its league 10 times (5 home/5 away) in either 5 games series or 3/2 home and 3/2 away;
      3. 8 interleague games with the rival, ie Orioles/Nats, Yanks/Mets; and
      4. 14 other interleague games with rotating teams. I’d really rather go back to a 154 games season and only play 6 other interleague games.

      Like

  38. Brian says:

    OK, since I brought up the re-draft topic, I figured I should show my choices with some reasoning. I’m not trying to predict what others will do, and I’m not using any research. This is totally based on my preconceived notions of schools, when schools come to mind, whatever strange selection protocol seems wise at the time, and attempts by each commissioner to screw over the others along the way. Remember, this is a snake draft instead of an NFL-style one, and conference history and travel cannot be considered.

    Round 1 (L to R) TX, FL, OSU, USC, AL, ND

    C1: TX – TX goes first due to money and dominance of a talent rich area
    C2: FL – FL follows for similar reasons but with less dominance
    C3: OSU – OSU has more dominance but of a less rich area
    C4: USC – USC’s area is great but the fans are less fanatical
    C5: AL – AL is near plenty of talent and the fans are devoted
    C6: ND – ND provides national appeal and access to all areas, but not as much locally. However, taking ND sets up the conference for Round 2.

    Round 2 (R to L) NE, GA, PSU, FSU, OU, MI

    C6: ND, MI – ND leads to MI as a rival, with the benefits of screwing over C3 and providing more access to OH talent
    C5: AL, OU – OU provides access to TX players and screws over C1
    C4: USC, FSU – FSU provides access to FL markets and screws over C2
    C3: OSU, PSU – PSU provides the only other OSU rival plus east coast access
    C2: FL, GA – GA gives the Atlanta market and domination of the state on top of FL’s other rival
    C1: TX, NE – NE is a national name and a rival, and picking them keeps them away from OU’s conference

    Round 3 (L to R) UCLA, TAMU, Miami, AU, TN, LSU

    C1: TX, NE, UCLA – Since NE didn’t bring a big market or talent, the next pick had to bring both. UCLA isn’t as big a name, but LA access is huge. UCLA also excels in other sports.
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU – TAMU opens a big market in another football crazy area and keeps them away from TX
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami – Miami provides access to a huge talent base and a big media market, plus some flash to balance PSU’s understated persona
    C4: USC, FSU, AU – AU provides more deep south access and keeps them away from C5
    C5: AL, OU, TN – Tough pick. I’ll go with the AL rivalry, history and other sports of TN.
    C6: ND, MI, LSU – LSU provides a deep pool of talent and southern exposure

    Round 4 (R to L) GT, UW, MD, OR, VT, NC
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC – NC opens the mid-atlantic region and also gives hoops
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT – VT opens the mid-atlantic region and a lot of talent
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR – OR gives Nike money/PR and recent success
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD – MD provides talent, hoops, the DC market and UnderArmour PR
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW – UW provides west coast access and solid tradition, keeps them from C4
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT – GT opens Atlanta and the SE while keeping them away from C2

    Round 5 (L to R) IL, WI, Pitt, MO, KY, Duke
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL – IL gives Chicago and is a sleeping giant
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI – WI gives recent success, is near Chicago and has hoops
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt – Pitt brings a major rivalry and solid hoops too
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO – MO brings markets and solid revenue sports, keeps them from C1
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY – KY provides hoops and OK football with great fans plus a TN rivalry
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke – Duke brings the best hoops rivalry and more hoops power

    Round 6 (R to L) MSU, UL, KS, SU, IA, Cal
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke, MSU – MSU brings 2 rivalries and more hoops
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY, UL – UL brings a great hoops rivalry
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO, KS – KS brings a hoops king and a rivalry
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt, SU – SU brings more hoops and NY state
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI, IA – IA brings a rivalry and keeps them from C1
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL, Cal – Cal brings a UCLA rivalry, great all-around program and SF

    Round 7 (L to R) Stanford, ASU, UConn, SC, OkSU, NCSU
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL, Cal, Stanford – Stanford is another all-around power and Cal rival
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI, IA, ASU – ASU brings Phoenix, coeds and some other sports too
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt, SU, UConn – UConn brings hoops rivalries, WBB and ESPN
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO, KS, SC – SC opens another deep pool of talent and great fans
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY, UL, OkSU – OkSU brings a rivalry and T. Boone Pickens money
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke, MSU, NCSU – NCSU brings a rivalry and keeps the state only C6

    Round 8 (R to L) Ark, Clemson, VA, AZ, IN, BYU
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke, MSU, NCSU, Ark – Ark gives an LSU rival and a history of success
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY, UL, OkSU, Clemson – Clemson opens a talent pool and screws C4
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO, KS, SC, VA – VA provides DC and some good talent
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt, SU, UConn, AZ – AZ opens the west, has good talent and hurts C2
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI, IA, ASU, IN – IN is the last hoops king available
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL, Cal, Stanford, BYU – BYU brings a national draw and solid teams

    Round 9 (L to R) UT, PU, CO, WV, USF, UCF
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL, Cal, Stanford, BYU, UT – UT brings a great rivalry and solid teams
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI, IA, ASU, IN, PU – PU brings a rivalry and great hoops
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt, SU, UConn, AZ, CO – CO brings Denver and solid history
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO, KS, SC, VA, WV – good history, fans and hoops
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY, UL, OkSU, Clemson, USF – USF provides FL access
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke, MSU, NCSU, Ark, UCF – UCF provides FL access and keeps them from C5

    Round 10 (R to L) TCU, UH, BSU, TT, MN, Navy
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke, MSU, NCSU, Ark, UCF, TCU – TCU provides access to TX and recent success
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY, UL, OkSU, Clemson, USF, UH – UH provides TX access and some recent success
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO, KS, SC, VA, WV, BSU – BSU provides great recent success
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt, SU, UConn, AZ, CO, TT – TT provides TX access and some recent success
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI, IA, ASU, IN, PU, MN – MN provides a city, some rivalries and other sports
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL, Cal, Stanford, BYU, UT, Navy – Navy provides a national following

    Round 11 (L to R) Army, HI, SMU, OrSU, ECU, BC
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL, Cal, Stanford, BYU, UT, Navy, Army – Army provides a great rivalry and more national fans
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI, IA, ASU, IN, PU, MN, HI – HI provides trips to HI and extra games
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt, SU, UConn, AZ, CO, TT, SMU – SMU gives more TX access and a rivalry
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO, KS, SC, VA, WV, BSU, OrSU – OrSU provides a rivalry and a solid team
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY, UL, OkSU, Clemson, USF, UH, ECU – ECU provides a new state and a decent program
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke, MSU, NCSU, Ark, UCF, TCU, BC – BC provides a ND rival and Boston, plus it keeps C3 from owning the northeast entirely

    Round 12 (R to L) AF, Fresno, Rutgers, UNLV, Baylor, Ole Miss
    C6: ND, MI, LSU, NC, Duke, MSU, NCSU, Ark, UCF, TCU, BC, Ole Miss – Ole Miss provides more southern access for talent (including Memphis), great tailgating and great coeds
    C5: AL, OU, TN, VT, KY, UL, OkSU, Clemson, USF, UH, ECU, Baylor – Baylor increases TX exposure and brings some other sports
    C4: USC, FSU, AU, OR, MO, KS, SC, VA, WV, BSU, OrSU, UNLV – UNLV brings Vegas, baby
    C3: OSU, PSU, Miami, MD, Pitt, SU, UConn, AZ, CO, TT, SMU, Rutgers – Rutgers opens NJ and gives a shot at getting parts of metro NYC when combined with the others
    C2: FL, GA, TAMU, UW, WI, IA, ASU, IN, PU, MN, HI, Fresno – Fresno opens CA a bit
    C1: TX, NE, UCLA, GT, IL, Cal, Stanford, BYU, UT, Navy, Army, AF – AF adds the third academy and this is a grouping the commissioners were too patriotic to block

    Before anyone gets upset, these are not my top 72 programs and certainly not in order. The way the draft fell elevated certain teams and lowered others. I’m sure it would turn out differently if I did it again or studied.

    If there was a round 13: NW, ISU, UC, KSU, Vandy, MS St
    C1: NW gives academics, an IL rivalry and a solid team
    C2: ISU gives an IA rivalry and academics
    C3: UC gives a little brother rivalry with OSU
    C4: KSU gives hoops and a KS rivalry
    C5: Vandy gives academics and some other sports
    C6: MS St gives a rivalry and more southern access for talent

    The only remaining unselected AQs would be WF and WSU.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Some notes:

      C1 will be the conference of champions with UCLA, Cal and Stanford. It will also be America’s conference with 3 academies and national teams like BYU and NE

      C2 will be the midwestern league with WI, IA, IN, PU and MN.

      C3 will be the eastern conference with PSU, Pitt, MD, UConn, RU and Miami.

      C4 will be the western conference with USC, OR, OrSU, BSU and UNLV.. It will also be the annoying song league with USC and FSU.

      C5 will be the southern league with no schools north of KY or west of TX.

      C6 will be the BB powerhouse with Duke, UNC and MSU.

      Doing the full draft is harder than it looks. There are lots of fairly equal teams to choose from most of the time.

      Like

    • frug says:

      My one big problem is you have C1 taking Navy in over BC in the tenth round. BC has a decent brand, is located in the nation’s seventh largest media market and has a top 30 athletic department in terms of revenue. More importantly, grabbing the premier athletic department in New England would do much more for C1 (which otherwise has no exposure in the Northeast) than whatever national appeal Navy still has.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I gave that some thought, much like NW. My thinking was that revenue can’t be a big factor because that is largely influenced by current TV contracts and those would be completely different with these new conferences. Also, just getting BC wouldn’t deliver a lot since BC isn’t the top team in Boston, ND is. C1 had two picks in a row (and that makes a huge difference in the results, if you couldn’t tell) so they could get Navy and Army, which provides a major TV property, national fan bases, and also locked in AF as a last pick so they also get the whole CIC series. For the last 3 teams chosen, that’s a pretty attractive package.

        I said these weren’t my top 72 programs, and certainly not in order. BC and NW are 2 schools that would go higher, but the previous picks forced them down.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        I should also point out that if you only have 1 major problem with it then it went pretty well. I have problems with it and I did it. There are all sorts of different logic one could use to pick the next team, and research would provide facts to replace impressions. I mostly wanted to see how hard it would be to pick 72 teams and how many AQs I would skip.

        Like

  39. frug says:

    Gotta disagree are you really sure ND is the top draw in Boston? According to Common Consensus(and admittedly unscientific project but still pretty good) BC is quite a bit more popular than ND. And yeah, the service academies are going to be decent draws when they play each other, but otherwise you are just going to have to watch the other schools roll over Army whose players are undersized because of height and weight restrictions. (Also, for what it’s worth, they (along with BYU) would be a horrible cultural fit with a conference with Stanford and Cal)

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Of course I’m not sure. That’s just my impression from some Bostonians I’ve known and time I’ve spent there. My problem with things like Common Census is that it is web based and thus highly skewed in demographics and largely influenced by what blogs mentioned it. One other factor against BC for me is that Boston is a pro sports town in my opinion. Maybe the new conference would change that, but that was part of my thought process.

      I’ll point out that having teams 10-12 playing 2 games per year in conference that draw well is pretty good. For the B10, look at IL, MN and IN. How many of their conference games draw well? If it’s mostly games against top teams, the academies could also do well in those games. Someone has to lose games in these conferences.

      Like I said, BC and NW schools that felt to me like they should have gone earlier. They were considered several times but passed over for one reason or another. I’m not saying the picks I made were right, but that was the result of me sitting down and doing the draft in one go. I’m sure it would come out differently if I did it again.

      Like

  40. bullet says:

    Emmert doesn’t appear to just want to roll over for the big sports schools. He’s calling a retreat to, for one, shut down Delaney’s pay for play idea.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6657255

    Like

    • Brian says:

      He can’t really shut it down. At most he can keep it out of the NCAA, but that doesn’t prevent schools from leaving the NCAA and forming a new governing body.

      The real problem is that the NFL and NBA need to form minor league systems but they prefer to be parasites on the college system. The best answer for the NCAA may be to cut back on scholarship value and/or numbers, forcing the pros to pick up the slack.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I would say 19 year olds aren’t ready for NFL. They need to mature more phyically. Biggest problem is Div I taking players who ought to be in community college.

        Now a minor league could keep some players who don’t belong out of college basketball. One and dones don’t add a lot.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          If you let the NFL draft players from the get-go, it would kind of force the development of more minor leagues in my opinion. If you have a prospect you believe will be a huge in a few years, he’s probably worth something to draft now and let develop for a few years. This would require an expansion of the draft, but I hope they do this and it becomes a legimiate option (and I think it would).

          College football isn’t good with this middle way now. It either needs to let the kids go to the NFL and then there is no excuses for taking booster money, or it needs to bring all the booster money out to the open and accept it as part of the game. The current middle way is extremely unfair to the players who bring in a lot of money, but are never guarenteed a chance to recoup it.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          I agree they aren’t ready for the NFL, but they would be ready for NFL lite that is basically NCAA I-A minus classes and with paychecks.

          Like

      • ccrider55 says:

        I think the NFL and college FB have a symbitic relationship, not parasitic.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          symbiotic…..darn sticky keyboard….

          Like

        • Brian says:

          College helps the pros much more than the reverse. CFB used to be the much bigger sport. Now NFL hopes and dreams are tainting CFB players to the detriment of CFB.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            How much would the media be spending on CFB if the NFL adopted a basketball one and done policy on drafting? Perhaps basketball numbers? Probably more….unless a post season playoff appears, and expands, rendering the regular season only a bit more meaningful than basketball season. The gain the NFL gets from allowing CFB to be the minor leagues is well compensated for by allowinf CFB to be meanngful (and valuable) in it’s own right.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I’d be just fine with CFB being to the NFL what college baseball is to MLB, or MBB to the NBA. Get rid of the players that don’t want an education and let me watch the players that do.

            Like

  41. Brian says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/06/13/img-academies-weinke/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a1

    IMG, the sports agency, is getting into high school sports training and recruiting. Is there any way this can turn out to be a good thing? At least they can provide some guidance to help players avoid oversigning issues, I guess.

    Like

  42. greg says:

    http://thegazette.com/2011/06/11/special-report-how-pass-interference-a-jawbreaker-punch-and-tossed-apples-nearly-canned-the-iowa-illinois-football-rivalry/

    Very long article on the Iowa-Illinois rivalry and the incident that led to the 15 year hiatus.

    Also includes this:

    STRANGE STREAKS

    Iowa-Illinois did not play from 1953-1966
    Iowa-Ohio State did not play from 1935-1943
    Minnesota-Illinois did not play from 1925-1940
    Minnesota-Ohio State did not play from 1951-1964
    Purdue-Northwestern did not play from 1959-1966
    Purdue-Michigan did not play from 1953-1960
    Wisconsin-Indiana played only twice from 1953 through 1966
    Purdue-Minnesota did not meet from 1975-78
    Iowa-Illinois won’t play from 2009 through at least 2015

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Some of those are strange streaks. I don’t think there was bad blood behind most of them. I wonder what the B10 was thinking when they made those schedules?

      Like

      • Eric says:

        Some of it was travel considerations. Ohio State and Minnesota were on opposite sides of the conference, so it made sense with an 8 game conference schedule for them to miss each other. Similar logic can apply to Ohio State-Iowa.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          That would explain playing them less often, but not the sudden appearance of long streaks of not playing them. OSU played IA every year from 1922-1929, then in 1934, then 1944. Since then there is no large gap. Did travel get harder in the mid to late 30s?

          OSU played MN 7 times from 1939-1950, then not until 1965. Since then there is also no large gap.

          OSU/WI took breaks from 1920-1930 and 1933-1941 with no other big gaps.

          If travel was the reason, I’d expect to see these teams replace each other more frequently on the schedule. Maybe there were more politics in scheduling back then.

          Like

          • Eric says:

            Hard to say for sure, but I’d guess it was probably somebody’s idea on how to save some money. Later, others didn’t like being in a conference and never playing so things reversed. Can’t swear that’s right or anything, but that’s my take.

            Like

  43. R says:

    Just watched the Drew ‘mad dog’ Rosenhaus news conference, billed by ESPN at least, as the Terrelle Pryor news conference. TP spent about a minute being remorseful, ‘mad dog’ complimented, and complemented him, by taking off on a venum spitting diatribe. Thankfully, ESPN only gave him about two minutes and cut away. The guy needs to give up coffee before his public appearances. On the other hand, it was great, but brief, theatre.

    Like

  44. Brian says:

    http://www.offtackleempire.com/2011/6/14/2222811/basic-nebraska-fan-misunderstandings

    Over on Off Tackle Empire, a B10 fan posted an article stating that NE fans misunderstand the B10. His main objections are the beliefs that:

    1. The middle tier teams of the B12 and B10 are of the same quality
    2. B10 defenses are too slow to catch Taylor Martinez

    He attacks point number one by looking at how many teams in each league either won a championship (including co-champs) or played in the CCG since 1996. Seven B12 teams have made the CCG with 2 teams winning 10 of 15 CCGs. The B10 has had 9 teams at least be co-champs over the same period. To him, this was sufficient proof that the B10 middle is stronger than the B12 middle. He didn’t count co-division champs for the B12, but he also pointed out that division champs had 3-4 losses 3 times and no B10 champion has ever had 3 or more losses.

    His attack on point 2 is based on the national rankings of B10 defenses in PPG and rushing YPG allowed as well as NFL draft picks on defense. He also uses Denard Robinson as an example.

    Anyway, this article made me wonder several things:

    1. Do most NE fans believe these 2 things, or is he reacting to a vocal minority on the internet?
    2. Are the middle tiers equal?
    3. How do you define the middle tiers, as that could be key to the argument?

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Taylor Martinez wasn’t the same after his injury. Not clear if he will be next year.

      Texas and OU were the only defenses fast enough to catch Taylor Martinez when healthy. Doubt any Big 10 defenses were fast enough (Ohio St. maybe?). There were probably only about a dozen or so in the country, if that many.

      Don’t know what UNL fans believe, but based on computer ratings, the B10 has been down the last 3-4 years and the B12 was a better conference.

      Like

      • greg says:

        OU and Texas were the only defenses fast enough to catch Taylor Martinez? I guess he ran for a TD every time he rushed against the other conference opponents.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        OSU and Iowa both had top 10 rushing defenses last year while playing in a conference more devoted to running than the B12. The top B12 team was TAMU at #30, a little behind #26 WI and just ahead of #32 IL.

        Many teams managed to catch Denard Robinson and I think they could have caught Taylor, too.

        And remember, the argument wasn’t about the conference as a whole but about the middle of each conference. The B10 being down was largely about MI and PSU being off their game to varying degrees.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      I have no idea how NE fans feel on these issues, but I can address questions 2 and 3 (in reverse order).

      #3. How do you define the middle tiers?
      I think the 3 main ways to divide teams into tiers are by brand, by conference winning percentage (to ignore differences in OOC scheduling philosophy) and by championships.

      While he started at 1996 to treat both conferences the same, I prefer to go back to 1993 for the B10 and get the most data possible in the 11 team era.

      The brands are easy to tier:
      OSU, MI, PSU
      WI, IA, MSU, PU, NW
      IL, MN, IN

      TX, OU, NE
      TAMU, OkSU, TT, MO, CO, KSU
      ISU, KS, Baylor

      By winning percentage, the B10 has 4 tiers to me. The problem is where to put PSU and WI. If they are in the top, then the league splits evenly. If they go in the middle, then the middle is large and strong.

      OSU 0.788
      MI 0.674
      PSU 0.625
      WI 0.608

      IA 0.524
      MSU 0.490
      PU 0.462
      NW 0.431

      IL 0.344
      MN 0.319
      IN 0.236

      For the B12, the tiers are more clear with a top 3 and bottom 3 clear of the middle.

      TX 0.744
      OU 0.727
      NE 0.659

      TT 0.575
      KSU 0.569
      TAMU 0.533
      CO 0.492
      MO 0.475
      OkSU 0.458

      KS 0.300
      ISU 0.283
      Baylor 0.150

      When it comes to championships, the B10 tiers are muddled again (outright championships in parentheses). Clearly OSU is on top and MN and IN are on the bottom. Are MI and WI also in the top? Maybe just MI because they are the only other team with multiple outright titles? As a side not, there were 30 B10 champs or co-champs since 1993, and 30 B12 division champs since 1996 so the numbers balance.

      10 – OSU (3.5 – one shared title was at 8-0 so I’m counting it as a half)
      5 – MI (2)

      4 – WI (1)
      3 – PSU (1), NW (1)
      2 – IA (0.5 – split with OSU at 8-0)
      1 – MSU (0), PU (0), IL (1)

      0 – MN, IN

      B12 division titles are a little more clear (conference titles in parentheses):
      8 – OU (7)
      6 – NE (2)
      5 – TX (3)

      4 – CO (1)
      3 – KSU (1)
      2 – TAMU (1), MO (0)

      0 – KS, ISU, TT, OkSU, Baylor

      To make my tiers, I’ll just combine all three measurements.

      B10:
      3 tops, 0 middles – OSU, MI
      2 tops, 1 middle – PSU

      1 top, 2 middles – WI
      0 tops, 3 middles – IA, MSU, PU, NW

      1 middle, 2 bottoms – IL
      3 bottoms – MN, IN

      The main difference between PSU and WI is reputation/history. They’ve been pretty similar since 1993, but the PSU brand has more value due to JoePa’s first 28 seasons. PSU has won a little more but WI shared one more title.

      B12:
      3 tops, 0 middles – TX, OU, NE

      0 tops, 3 middles – TAMU, MO, CO, KSU
      2 middles, 1 bottom – TT, OkSU (no division titles but each tied for one)

      3 bottoms – ISU, KS, Baylor

      Net result:
      B10 middle = WI, IA, MSU, PU, NW
      B12 middle = TAMU, TT, OkSU, MO, CO, KSU

      Now I can try to answer question #2.

      #2. Are the middle tiers equal?

      By numbers, the B12 wins 6 to 5, but that isn’t a meaningful answer I don’t think.

      By brands, the middles are about the same.

      By winning percentage, the four lower teams in each group are very closely paired with the B12 team just slightly ahead in each pair. WI is ahead of TT and KSU, but it has to balance both of them. For that reason, I give an edge to the B12 here. I should note that the bottom of the B12 is significantly worse than the B10’s bottom, which may be why the middle of the B12 does better by comparison.

      By championships, WI was almost a top team (again) and even a bottom tier team had an outright B10 championship. All of the middle teams had at least 1 title in the B10. The B12 matches up well again except for TT and OkSU teams that never won a title (they did each share a division title once in the harder division). For this reason, I’ll give an edge to the B10 here.

      Overall, I did say the two groups are pretty equal. I’d give a slight edge to the B10 for WI blurring the separation between top and middle and IL blurring the line between middle and bottom. The B12 counters by having 1 additional middle tier team.

      The new versions of the conferences shape up differently, though. The B12 lost a top tier and a middle tier team while the B10 gained a top team. CO had the conference titles of WI and the winning percentage of MSU. Losing CO shrinks the B12 middle to 5 also, while taking their third best middle team away. That leaves the B12 with a winning percentage advantage but a championship deficit.

      All in all I’d give the new B10 an edge over the new B12, but not a huge one.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The bottom of the B12 is significantly worse than the B10’s bottom?

        Kansas was in the Orange Bowl just a couple of years ago and finished the season in the top 10. Iowa St. has been competitive with Iowa in recent years (admittedly a rivalry game) and has been in the top 10 at least once in the last 10 years and twice was a game away from winning the division. Now Baylor until last year was bad-they were like—Indiana. Have either Indiana or Minnesota threatened to win the conference since 1967?

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I think IL more than balances KS. IL has an outright B10 title, which KS doesn’t, and IL has a significantly higher conference winning percentage (0.344 to 0.300). IL has been to 2 BCS bowls to 1 for KS, as well. i give the edge to IL.

          ISU has given IA a run, no doubt, but they haven’t done much in conference. MN has a better W% at 0.319 to 0.283, and was a top 20 team in 1999 and 2003 (5-3 both years). In 1999 their 3 losses came by 3 (in OT), 3, and 5 points. In 2003 they lost by 3, 6 and 18. ISU tied for the B12 N once at 4-4. ISU was one game out at 5-3 in 2000, and at 4-4 in 2005. MN has been to 9 bowl games in this time period, but ISU went to 6 bowls while in the B12. I give the edge to MN for more bowls and more conference wins.

          IN has a much better W% than Baylor (0.236 to 0.150). IN went to bowls in 1993 and 2007, Baylor in 2010 (and 1994, before the B12, but I point it out to be fair). Baylor has had limited success in the B12 with 2010 being the only winning season. They had better luck in the SWC, with titles in 1974, 1980 and 1994 (at 4-3) and many bowls in the 80s especially. However, the comparison was about the current conferences, and IN has been better since then. Based on W% I favor IN here.

          So in all 3 comparisons, I think the B10 team had more success in this time period. That’s why I said the B10’s bottom is significantly better.

          As for conference success for MN and IN since 1967:

          IN success since 1967 (8+ wins):
          1979 IN was 4th at 5-3 and ranked in the top 20 while the winners were 8-0
          1987 IN was 2nd at 6-2 and ranked in the top 20 while the winner was 7-0-1
          1988 IN was 5th at 5-3 and ranked in the top 20 while the winner was 7-0-1
          1993 IN was 4th at 5-3 while the winners were 6-1-1 (this is during the time period studied)

          MN success since 1967 (8+ wins):
          1999 MN was 4th at 5-3 and ranked in the top 20 while the winner was 7-1 (MN had 3 close losses)
          2002 MN was 7th at 3-5 while the winners were 8-0
          2003 MN was 4th at 5-3 and ranked in the top 20 while the winner was 7-1 (MN had 2 close losses)

          Like

    • herbiehusker says:

      I’ll take a shot at these questions as a long time Nebraska fan. Growing up in the Midwest I’ve followed both the Big Ten and the Big 8/Big 12 extremely close; here’s my take on questions #2 (I’ll get to question #1 in a second). I think the styles of play definitely dictate the team speed of the defenses in both conferences. Back in the days of the Big 8, there was little or no difference between the athletes on the defensive side of the ball between the conferences. Both conferences either ran the option or operated mainly out of pro style sets with a successful running game being the offensive goal in both conferences, therefore the athletes required to stop these offenses were of the same mold. Over the past 10 years the Big 12 and Big Ten have went separate ways for the most part in offensive philosophies. The Big 12 has for the most part neglected the running game for 4 and 5 wide shotgun sets looking to spread defenses out getting their athletes in space one on one with defenders. While the Big Ten does operate more and more out of the shotgun, the goal is still to run the ball successfully (omitting Northwestern who does display many Big 12 offense tendencies). This change in offensive philosophy between the conferences has had an effect on the type of defenders you see in each conference. The defenders in the Big 12 tend to be smaller, faster athletes capable of making plays against WR’s and RB’s one on one in space. For example, last year it wasn’t at all rare to see Nebraska play nearly entire games with one LB on the field (and the one LB was a hybrid being 210lbs). The Big 12 defenses have had to adjust to the quick paced offenses they face every week and have done so by almost making nickel and dime defenses their base defense. The Big Ten by contrast still employs strength and size over speed because of the offenses they face every week (I can’t imagine the joy on Bret Bielema’s face to see a defense committed to only playing a single 210lb LB all game). This doesn’t mean that the Big 12 defenses are better than Big Ten defenses; they are both just geared to stop what the face every week. I do think the Big 12 defenses to a defender are more athletic; but I see the Big Ten as a better defense at stopping the run. So to finally get to my point and answer question #2; I believe Martinez would have a much tougher time breaking through the front 7 of a Big Ten defense who is better geared at stopping the run, but I also believe that once he did; he would have absolutely no trouble running away from a Big Ten defense (hence Denard Robinson’s tremendous success) who is not as athletic as a Big 12 defense which is geared to stop the spread.

      Now for question #1; I think in order to do this we should take a look at the conferences head to head. If we were to seed and pair the Big Ten schools vs the Big 12 schools (minus Nebraska) it may shed some light on the answer. I would pair the schools up this way (based on what I’ve seen the past 5 years or so):

      Oklahoma vs Ohio St
      Texas vs Penn St
      Oklahoma St vs Wisconsin
      Missouri vs Michigan
      Texas A&M vs Iowa
      Texas Tech vs Michigan St
      Kansas St vs Northwestern
      Colorado vs Illinois
      Kansas vs Purdue
      Iowa St vs Minnesota
      Baylor vs Indiana

      I think the Big 12 wins the Oklahoma and Texas games giving them a 2-0 advantage after 2. I think Wisconsin beats Oklahoma St, but I think lately Missouri beats Michigan giving the Big 12 a 3-1 advantage after 4. I can see Iowa beating A&M (again this isn’t necessarily last season; but the last 5 years combined) but Texas Tech beating Michigan St. This gives the Big 12 a 4-2 advantage after 6. I think Northwestern beats Kansas St, Illinois beats Colorado and I think its close but Kansas beats Purdue giving the Big 12 a 5-4 advantage after 9. Iowa St beats Minnesota and Indiana beats Baylor ending it in a 6-5 advantage for the Big 12. Looking at it this way though, the wins for the Big Ten came at that Middle Tier; so I do think the middle tier for the Big Ten is superior to that of the Big 12; but I also think the Big 12 is a little more top heavy.

      I’m excited to see how Nebraska transitions into this new conference with the style of play and philosophies more aligned to my liking and more aligned to what they were in the Big 8 (which was for me anyway the most fun conference to watch when it was still around). I have always been an admirer of the pageantry and tradition that seems to emanate from Big Ten games; I’m more than anxious to see Nebraska be a part of it.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        herbie,

        I agree style of play dictates defenses. However, I think you’ll be surprised how much spread offense you’ll see in the B10 (NW, PU, IN, IL, MI, OSU and PSU). Only WI, IA and MSU have avoided using the spread. It tends to be more of a running spread than a pass happy spread, but any spread changes the D. OSU plays 4-2-5 more than a 4-3 because there is so much spread anymore. And lately, those 2 LBs have been smaller than before (220-235 instead of 240-255). The unusual thing to me is IA which seems to stick with a 4-3 no matter the offense.

        As for comparing the middle tiers, the time period certainly is important. The article used the whole B12 period. I used that plus the whole 11 team period of the B10. You used the last 5 years. That impacts what teams are in what tiers, but I think the result was similar. In general I think you agree with me that the two middles are roughly equivalent. The B10 may be slightly better, but it’s not a big difference. I think the B10 fan that wrote that article was being a homer to be offended at the idea that the middles were equal. It’s a reasonable thing for a NE fan to believe, especially since they are more familiar with the B12 teams.

        Like

        • greg says:

          Iowa’s defense almost always remains in its base 4-3 personnel group, but really show multiple looks from it. One OLB has always been more of a 5th d-back with more pass defense duties than run support duties. In the past they’ve slotted conventionally-sized 230 LB OLB there, finding ones with pass defense skills. But right now the two most likely candidates for that spot are young, fast 205 to 215 LB guys, so it appears Iowa is going to be running a 4-2-5 kind of look like many teams already do.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            greg,

            The only reason I even mentioned Iowa is I’ve seen the fans complain about Parker leaving the base D personnel in all the time instead of swapping in an extra DB against the spread. Certainly you can still make adjustments in assignments while keeping the same players, but I’m not aware of other schools keeping the same personnel package as much as Iowa. No slight was intended, in case you perceived one.

            Like

          • greg says:

            Brian,

            No slight, you just gave me an opportunity to talk about Iowa’s 4-3. 🙂

            Yes, most Iowa fans complain all the time about Iowa leaving their base personnel in the game. But I think they are just too dimwitted to think things through. Why should we take our 2nd team all-conference OLB off the field in order to bring in a nickel back, who is usually at best an equal pass defender to the OLB? Iowa doesn’t have a lot of depth, so the dback options on the bench are generally below average defenders. The same guys that fans complain about never playing are the same ones they complain about when they get repeatedly beat when they do play.

            Fans just like to complain.

            Like

          • jj says:

            Agreed. I like the 4 3. Maybe I’m old school.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            jj,

            I prefer it too, except when it’s a bad match-up for the offense. The 5th DB is usually a DB/LB hybrid anyway, so it’s probably more a nomenclature difference than anything. It’s not like IA is playing a 4-3 run stack against TT like they would against WI.

            Like

      • 84Lion says:

        As a Penn State alum and fan, I like the comparison of PSU to Texas given the record of Texas vs. Nebraska in Big 12 play. If Penn State could attain a 9-1 record against Nebraska over the next 10 years (or less, if PSU and Nebraska meet in Big 10 CCGs) I’d be really pleased.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          So what is your reaction to the Pitt series? According to stories I’ve seen, a lot of PSU people don’t really care (perhaps because it’s 5 years away, perhaps because of feelings of superiority) while Pitt fans are excited. It’s probably generational, at least in part.

          I read an interesting piece that claimed PSU actually needs the rivalry more than Pitt does. Sure, Pitt has more to gain financially from the series. However, Pitt has a great rivalry with the Backyard Brawl while PSU has never picked up a strong rivalry. OSU/PSU will always be one-sided emotionally, MI wasn’t annual and MSU wasn’t good enough. Maybe NE will become a true rival, since they need to replace OU, but IA may take that role. Would WI be a rival, considering they already have MN and IA?

          Do you see PSU developing any rival in the near future?

          Do you think PSU needs a rival?

          http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/college/s_742140.html

          Like

          • SideshowBob says:

            As a PSU fan, I don’t see the “need” for a rival. It may be something fun, I guess, but it doesn’t really affect the success of a program. And even if I did think we needed a “rival”, I wouldn’t consider Pitt one anyway. I’ll continue to care far more about playing and beating Ohio St than Pitt.

            I’m fine with scheduling Pitt, because I like seeing PSU play games in areas where we have a lot of alumni and recruit a lot. But to me, it’s basically just another series against an eastern team like playing Syracuse or Rutgers is. I don’t get particularly excited about it, unlike say the current series we are playing with Alabama. I’d like to see PSU adopt a scheduling philosophy of playing one eastern schools (rotating among Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, WVU, BC, etc.) and one “national” elite program each season. You can schedule them home/away properly to still have 7 home games a season if the Big Ten stays at 8 conference games.

            Like

          • 84Lion says:

            Brian, sorry I couldn’t get back to you earlier. Things got kinda busy last week… Sorry for the long-winded reply but I wanted to try to be thorough!
            your reaction to the Pitt series
            I’m probably not a good person to ask as I was never big into the “Pitt hate.” I graduated from PSU in 1984 so I do remember when Pitt-PSU was a competitive rivalry…but as far as “hating Pitt” I just saw no real good reason for it. I did think the t-shirts and sweatshirts with a lion on a toilet with “$*itt on Pitt” were really cool and I always wished I had one. Frankly at the time I was too busy trying to earn my degree to get fired up about football.
            PSU has never picked up a strong rivalry.
            Don’t understand the thing about PSU-OSU being one-sided emotionally, that game really has developed into a great series and it seems both PSU and OSU fans get up for that one. PSU fans generally didn’t care for the MSU rivalry, which was “manufactured” and featured a really crappy trophy, but the games were competitive for the most part. Michigan and Iowa have never felt like “rivalries,” probably because PSU fans didn’t appreciate the Carr and Ferentz dominance. Rivalries, like fine wine, take time to age and PSU has been in the Big Ten for less than 20 years, and the teams in the Big Ten had their games and rivalries for years. I think PSU-Nebraska will be a really huge yearly game, and may even develop into a major rivalry, but the problem is that the scheduling for this game is going to be all over the map, not tied down to a specific Saturday of a specific month. I think a great rivalry has to have:
            1) Lotta long-term hate between the two teams/schools. (see especially the southern rivalries like Alabama-Auburn, Georgia-Florida, and Georgia-Georgia Tech)
            2) Specific date. Season-ending game is good, or in the case of the Red River Shootout or World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party at least at a specific point during the season. Gotta be consistent.
            3) Something else, such as in-state bragging rights, trophy, or a great name. Interestingly, one of the biggest rivalry games, OSU-Michigan, has none of these, but I suppose could be considered “too big” to need such. (Otherwise, see Florida-FSU, The Little Brown Jug, and the Backyard Brawl)
            I think PSU-Wisconsin could become a big rivalry if the hate level escalates. My understanding is that this game is supposed to be played for a trophy (a keg), so it satisfies the above requirements.
            PSU-MSU never really made the grade because the hate level wasn’t there, and the trophy/name was really bad.
            Remember that PSU was an independent until joining the Big Ten, playing an eclectic mix of teams dominated by Eastern schools. In their day, Pitt and West Virginia were worthy opponents, and Syracuse was OK (although fading even then), but PSU had a very lopsided record against teams like Temple and Maryland. As a result, PSU did the opposite of today where they scheduled tough “perennial contenders” like Alabama, Notre Dame, and Nebraska “out of conference.” Unfortunately the nature of this scheduling really precluded any of these opponents becoming great rivals, and when PSU joined the Big Ten there were some teams (like Michigan and Indiana) that they’d never even played previously, meaning that there wasn’t much history to build on. In reality, PSU had played MSU the most times of any Big Ten team prior to PSU joining the Big Ten (believe that’s right) so in that respect MSU was a good choice.
            Frankly I think PSU has been independent enough that having a “rival” as a “measuring stick” if you will isn’t really all that necessary. I mean, you look at the Alabama-Auburn Iron Bowl and coaches have been fired because they haven’t dominated that game. I think PSU is above that kind of nonsense and takes something of a “higher road.” I think PSU’s “rivals” are the “contenders,” such as Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, etc. because of the name prestige and especially when those teams are very good.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            84Lion,

            OSU fans get up for PSU when they are good, just like they do for any big name team. But getting up for PSU is not even remotely similar to the MI game. OSU fans are pumped for the MI game all year long.

            If MI loses their next 100 games in a row I’d still want to beat them 500-0 and would enjoy every second of it. If PSU ever gets bad, it would be like playing IN. I’d want the win, but I’d rather play lots of backups and not risk injuries to players before more important games.

            Like

    • schwarm says:

      The Nebraska offense is a big question mark. Martinez’s recovery status is not clear, the second string QB is transferring, there’s a new OC and reshuffled offensive coaching staff ( I think only the OL coach is the same, and its not clear if that’s a good thing). I would not be shocked to see the third string QB in spring ball start later in the year.

      Like

  45. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    ESPN Sportsnation and EA Sports are conducting a poll on football pre-game traditions with Youtube NCAA 11 videos of the pre-game traditions.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/sportsnation/story?page=ncaatraditionsvote

    Round of 16:

    (1) Notre Dame v. (16) West Virginia
    (2) Ohio St. v. (15) Nebraska
    (3) Clemson v. (14) USC
    (4) Florida St. v. (13) Florida
    (5) Auburn v. (12) LSU
    (6) Colorado v. (11) Michigan
    (7) Texas v. (10) Oklahoma
    (8) Georgia v. (9) Tennessee

    Like

  46. bullet says:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/story?id=6662097

    Oregon maybe in more hot water. University employee rents a car. Decides to let other student use it. FB player gets caught driving 118 with a suspended license.

    Employee can prove she got paid for the exact amount of the rent, claiming the other student paid her (cash of course).

    Has anyone on this board ever rented a car for their own use and suddenly decided to let someone else use it? Employee undoubtedly was paid by booster to do it.

    I’m begininng to feel like they should nail Oregon to the wall.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I think Hertz will want to talk to her as well since she most assuredly didn’t list the other player as a second driver when she got the car, let alone an unlicensed third party driving.

      While she may have been exactly reimbursed, there’s a good chance the FB player would have been charged more due to his age (if they would rent to him at all) so this may still be a violation. Unless she always loans her car to others, it is still a special benefit.

      Like

  47. Craig Z says:

    Not earth shattering news but Seattle joins WAC as a nonfootball playing member.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015319628_apwacexpansion1stldwritethru.html

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I’ll be more interested to see if he can lure any FCS teams next year. They all turned down the WAC this year.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        The teams they want really don’t belong in FBS (with the exception of Cal-Davis-after they have about 10 years to build their program-Montana could do alright but does FBS need another Wyoming?). It would be interesting to see how the other conferences think of them. Do the Big 6 want someone to put the WAC out of their misery or do they like the WAC surviving to highlight the gap between the Big 6 and the rest? Do the MWC and CUSA want someone to play home and home with and look good by comparison against or do they want to eliminate a rival but just can’t justify sharing their income with schools that don’t add any? How do the Sun Belt and MAC feel about being 2 of 11 vs. being 2 of 10? The Sun Belt and WAC seem to have a standoff with ULL and UNT not wanting to join the WAC and La Tech not wanting to join the Sun Belt.

        I’d like to see a playoff and the more teams in FBS, the less likely it is to occur. The BE could ultimately decide the WAC’s fate. If they raid CUSA, the domino effect could cause the WAC to rapidly distentegrate-at least as a fb conference.

        Like

  48. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Most recent Athletic Dept. revenue, expenses and profit for 2009-10.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-15-athletic-departments-increase-money_n.htm

    Oregon and Alabama made the biggest profit.

    Texas and Ohio State were #1 & #2 in both revenue and expenses.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Interesting that of the 22 “self sufficient” athletic departments (those that had generated athletic revenues that exceeded athletic expenses) 14 still received some sort of allocated revenue (student fees, direct institutional support or state support).

      The 8 that didn’t are LSU, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Purdue (never would have guessed that) Texas and Texas A&M.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Nebraska’s Athletics budget most years include a payment to the University. [That payment was suspended for the last year to help make up for the loss of revenue for leaving the Big 12.] I would much rather see arrangements like that than University payments to Athletics.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Yes, several teams on the list gave money back to the school. For OSU, it’s included as an expense.

          Other accounting differences (all sorts of maintenance, utilities, security, etc bills may be covered by the AD or the school) also greatly impact the expenses and thus the profit margin.

          Maybe some day the bottom schools will take a hint and quit bankrupting their states and their students in trying to compete with the big boys.

          Like

      • frug says:

        I guess I should post his too:

        http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

        It’s a searchable database of every DI athletic departments finances.

        Like

      • jj says:

        I applaud any school that can make revenue doing this. Michigan raised undergrad tuition about 7 percent for next year. Schools that are draining money need to look hard at the cost value prop. Not that mi is.

        Like

        • cutter says:

          Michigan’s Athletic Department presented its FY 2012 budget to the regents yesterday (16 June). The total revenue figure is $121.2M with expenses of $109.8M for a total surplus of $11.4M. Although the detailed budget document hasn’t been posted to the internet yet, here is some other information:

          1. $440 million of construction projects have been funded by the Michigan Athletic Department over the past 10 years.

          2. Michigan will fund 29 varsity sports to the full NCAA scholarship limit and provide for continued capital investment during FY 2012. The athletic department is a self-supporting unit that does not receive financial support from the University’s General Fund. Michigan recently added two new varsity sports–men’s and women’s lacrosse.

          3. From the detailed FY 2011 budget, here’s the numbers from the past two fiscal years:

          FY 2010 Projected

          Revenue – $101.0M
          Expenses – $84.8M
          Net Revenue – $15.2M

          FY 2011 Budget

          Revenue – $105.0M
          Expenses – $100.3M
          Net Revenue – $4.7M

          See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-10/2010-6-X-17.pdf

          4. Two large reasons for the increases in revenue are the addition of an eighth home game for the 2011 football season and the fact that premium and box seats are, according to Michigan Athletic Director David Brandon, “100 percent sold out, and a line is quickly forming.”

          The additional home game expects to bring an additional $4.63 million in revenue, while the premium seating revenue will bring in an additional $5.1 million.

          The only reported loss in revenue according to the budget was due to not holding a Big Chill outdoor hockey game at Michigan Stadium, which brought in $1.4 million in revenue

          5. Regent Andrea Fisher Newman pointed out that the athletic department contributes to the general fund in both tuition for scholarship athletes and through a donation, which this year will be $1.8 million according to Brandon, down from $2 million last year.

          Brandon added that 74 percent of scholarships are for out-of-state student-athletes. Cost of tuition and fees for the 2011-12 school year will be $12,634 for in-state students, $37,782 for out of state.

          6. The athletic department has a $65-million endowment.

          Brandon said the department plans on continuing to grow. He’d like to increase the endowment and also see the annual revenue grow to $160 million.

          See the following links:

          http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/061611aaa.html

          http://www.annarbor.com/sports/michigan-board-of-regents-meeting-athletic-department-budget-dave-brandon-university-of-michigan-job/

          http://www.freep.com/article/20110617/SPORTS06/106170402/Dave-Brandon-Michigan-athletics-strong-financially

          Once the regents release the detailed document on the internet, we’ll have a better idea of the annual conference distributions that include television revenues for football and men’s basketball. That should give us some insight into how much ABC/ESPN, CBS and the Big Ten Network contributed to each school in FY 2011 and what the budgeted revenue is for FY 2012. In the FY 2011 document, budgeted conference distributions were $22.2M–we’ll see in a short time span whether or not that number was accurte.

          Like

    • greg says:

      By conference, the 22 that had a net profit:
      8 B10
      5 SEC
      5 Big 12
      2 Pac 10/12
      1 ACC
      1 Big East

      Like

      • Brian says:

        To be fair, that’s really:

        7 B10 – 70% (NW is not included)
        6 B12 – 55% (Baylor)
        5 SEC – 45% (Vandy)
        2 P10 – 25% (USC, Stanford)
        1 BE – 17% (Pitt, Syracuse)
        1 ACC – 13% (Duke, WF, Miami, BC)

        NE’s place is based on their time in the B12. Also, private schools don’t have to report the numbers. Presumably ND would make the list. Maybe USC, NW, Syracuse and/or Pitt. Duke and Miami seem unlikely to me.

        Like

        • frug says:

          Notre Dame has confirmed it makes an annual donation to the school and BYU has stated that it has operated in the black for the past 3 years (presumably since they can lean on the LDS church to help get booster donations). There service academies probably do as well since they don’t have to give out scholarships since tuition is already free.

          Like

        • SideshowBob says:

          Pitt is public, aren’t they on the list?

          Like

          • frug says:

            Pitt is technically “publicly affiliated” not “publicly owned” and thus isn’t subject to the same disclosure laws as a school like Illinois or Texas. I’m still not entirely clear on the difference, but apparently the relationship between Pitt and the state is essentially a business one in which Pitt agrees to make certain concessions to the state (in state tuition for example) in exchange for a limited amount of state funding, while still primarily operating like a private school.

            (For the record, the same principle applies to Penn State as well, but they release their finances anyways for most years).

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Yeah, I was going to list the PA schools as also exempt, but since PSU gave out numbers I just listed Pitt. Anyone who receives a certain type of federal funding is required to submit the data so maybe PSU had to disclose while Pitt didn’t.

            Like

  49. Brian says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/06/16/unc-ncaa.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a5

    So now we know why UNC fought to keep those records from becoming public. A group of 11 FB players accumulated over $13,000 in parking tickets in 3 years, and not all of the 11 had any tickets.

    As long as they were held to the same standards as other students in terms of paying the tickets (most schools won’t let you enroll for the next term, and you certainly can’t renew your parking permit without paying) it isn’t an NCAA problem, but it sure looks bad. It makes you wonder where they got the money to pay.

    Like

  50. mushroomgod says:

    Duffman–I’ve been away from the site for awhile…..I tried to e-mail some materials I thought you’d be interested in through Frank…did you ever get them?

    Like

  51. Brian says:

    http://www.cleveland.com/ohio-sports-blog/index.ssf/2011/06/big_ten_cbs_deal_extends_baske.html

    The B10 and CBS have extended their BB deal through 2016-2017. Conveniently that lines up the rights with the ABC/ESPN deal for FB.

    Like

  52. Brian says:

    http://mac-sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9400&ATCLID=205160007

    The MAC has released their TV schedule. Normally that’s no big deal, but I found it interesting.

    They have 4 games on Thursday, 9/1, and one on Friday 9/16. Otherwise they only play on Saturdays (only 11 night games) in September and October. Once November starts, however, they have 18 weekday night games (almost all on ESPN2 or ESPNU) versus 6 Saturday games (all in the afternoon).

    Like

    • @Brian – That’s brutal. It’s the price to get ESPN exposure.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        True. It brought up several thoughts for me:

        1. That many November night games in the MAC guarantees some really bad weather games. They get more exposure, but how much does it hurt attendance? Do they actually net more or less revenue?

        2. Who fills all those night spots in October and September on ESPN2 and ESPNU? MLB on ESPN2 I suppose, but ESPNU? Other conferences (WAC, etc)?

        3. Does weather and attendance data from these night games show that the B10 is overly concerned about issues with November night games? Granted, B10 games deal with a lot more people but the underlying problems are the same and the games would be on Saturdays instead of weekdays.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I used to enjoy the TH ESPN games, but then the major conferences all abandoned them. Weeknight games are horrible for attendance. The MAC needs the exposure more than the fans. Also, they don’t have as many traveling across state. A greater % of their fan base is local-and, of course, it is much smaller.

          They really are bending over backwards for ESPN. They seem to have a large number of mid-week games (18/24) so ESPN can get the better ones and avoid the match of bottom 10 schools.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            The MAC needs exposure, but the question is what is it worth? How much money do they lose by playing so many weeknight games? Is the limited exposure they get worth it? It’s not like locals are unaware of the MAC schools, and few students are going to travel from far away to attend them.

            I’d think they would benefit more from getting a small syndication deal for a Saturday game of the week (maybe one game for OH, another for MI).

            Like

  53. StevenD says:

    Since things are a bit quiet at the moment, I would like to revisit the discussion on whether B1G football should play eight conference games or nine. If I recall correctly, the benefits of eight games are: (1) an even number of home/away conference games, (2) more flexibility in scheduling non-conference opponents, (3) greater opportunity for the schools with large stadiums to maximize revenue, and (4) a larger inventory of games for the BTN. Did I miss anything?

    As for the nine-game option, the benefits are: (1) fewer non-conference games to be negotiated, (2) more consistency in the quality of games, (3) faster cycling of the rotating crossover opponents, and (4) an extra week of games that matter for the conference championship. Is there anything else?

    There is a strong case to be made for either option so perhaps the best outcome is to alternate between the two? This is not as crazy as it sounds. When you play eight conference games, you have only two games with rotating crossover opponents. This means it takes three rotations to play all of them. This is not good for conference unity. When you play nine conference games, you have three games with rotating crossover opponents so you play everyone in just two rotations. However, one of those opponents gets played in both rotations. The cleanest scheme for those crossovers is to play three of them one year (nine conference games) and two of them the next (eight conference games). That’s five games for five rotating opponents — a perfect fit.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      With 9 games, you get a more true conference champion as you get closer to a round robin and everybody’s schedule gets more common opponents.

      The experts also say 9 games will make the TV people happier, presumably by getting rid of that one week when everyone plays a cupcake.

      Also realize that some of the negatives can be accounted for with planning. For example, if every team in the division gets the same number of home games then the 5/4 split is less unfair. This favors one division over the other in terms of ease of getting to the national title, but is otherwise balanced. Also, careful scheduling can balance fewer home games with making those the harder and/or better selling games including all the inter-division rivalry games. As an OSU fan, I’d say getting MI, WI, 1 other inter-division opponent and 1 of IL/PU/IN at home would be about equal to the 2 non-MI inter-division teams, PSU and 2 of IL/PU/IN as an example.

      And yes, your plan is as crazy as it sounds. Leaders and Legends, and the B10 having 12 teams is bad enough, we don’t need to add indecision on the number of conference games. Unless 9 games is clearly better for the schools, they should stay at 8. If they go to 9, they have to stick with it for years. It may well be part of the new TV deal in 2017.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/43126/acc-not-interested-in-9-game-format

      The ACC doesn’t want to go to 9 games. I’m sure FSU, Clemson and GT have serious influence on that position with their SEC rivalries.

      Maybe IA doesn’t worry as much with ISU as their rival. Of course, MI, MSU and PU still have ND annually to worry about. If MI supports 9 games (with 110,000 seats and a difficult annual OOC rival), then it should work for anyone.

      All coaches will,, of course, be against it but they are whiners looking out for #1.

      Like

  54. Brian says:

    http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17300&ATCLID=205161330

    OSU has locked up 2nd place in the director’s cup this year behind perennial winner Stanford (1526.75 – 1277.05). Duke is 3rd with Cal 4th with only baseball points still to be calculated, but OSU has more than a 100 point lead on them. PSU is 11th with MI 14th.

    Like

  55. bullet says:

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/06/17/1709565/back-from-brink-California-reaches.html

    It would be a better story if they didn’t knock off Rice to get there. Rice and FSU (knocked off in super-regional by A&M) were the only ones of the top 8 seeds not to get to the CWS.

    The BE had 3 northern teams in the NCAA and won 6 games, more than anyone but the Big 4. The B10 had 1 team and won 2 games..

    The Big 4 did dominate. 2 ACC schools (record 21-11), 3 SEC schools (record 25-9), 2 B12 (record 13-12), 1 P10 (record 21-11) are in the CWS. Only other conferences with winning records-Summit 1 team, 3-2, Big West 2 teams 5-4.

    The Big 4 were 80-43. The rest were 41-78.

    Like

  56. Nostradamus says:

    the Michigan AD presented their budget to the Board of Regents yesterday.

    -Highlights include estimated 2010-2011 conference distributions of $22.56 million and $23.75 million for 2011-2012.
    -Also of note television revenue to $16.625 million in 10/11 from $14.887, a 11.6% year over year increase. Or in other words a bigger jump than one would’ve expected from natural escalation of the contracts. Big Ten Network profitability for the schools finally? Something else?
    http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-11/2011-06-X-13.pdf

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Well the TV numbers increased by $497k from FY08 to FY09 and $458k from FY09 to FY10, so that seems like roughly the standard growth rate.

      The jump from FY10 to FY11 is projected to be $1.738M, and the jump from FY11 to FY12 is projected to be $952k.

      FY11 = July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011, so we’re looking at a jump this past year.

      Somewhere in there (should be FY12) is an increase due to adding NE (unless that didn’t increase revenue) and an increase for adding a CCG. The CCG should add $1M+ per team unless they are using accounting tricks. If standard contract growth is worth about $500k per year, then where is the CCG value? Did adding NE not add any value per team?

      When does the new CBS deal kick in for hoops, and did the numbers change or does it just maintain the growth curve?

      Like

      • Gregory LYnch says:

        My guess is that most of the $1M extra came from the CCG with very little from Nebraska and I would be very surprised if there is any profit sharing from the BTN yet. I have speculated that the increases from ESPN and BTN for Nebraska essentially covered the extra cost for Nebraska’s distribution and that the Big Ten decided to negotiate other items, such as removing ESPN’s exclusivity over television windows in order to grow the BTN revenue faster rather than additional short-term monetary items.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          The problem with that is that the extra million showed up this year and the CCG shouldn’t kick in until FY12. If a baseline growth of roughly $500k is expected due to the standard escalation clauses, then what is causing the FY11 to gain an extra $1.2M+?

          The CCG deal was valued at roughly $24M per year according to sources. Is MI lowballing their projection for FY12?

          Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          @ Gregory LYnch,
          Like Brian said, we are talking about 2010-2011 here. You are a year off Nebraska isn’t a member of the conference. Growing both the BTN and ABC/ESPN contracts out at flat rates from their last known values in 2009-2010 to their respective expiration dates, I would’ve projected 2010-2011’s tv payout to be about $15.4 million. It turns out to be 16.625 million per school or a departure of about $1.2 million per school. So you have about $13 million extra dollars as a conference in tv rights when nothing had changed yet.

          Michigan had projected $16.597 million for 2010-2011 a year ago this week as well. For reference that was less than a week after Nebraska had been accepted as a member in the conference. Well before any discussions re: conference championship games or additional rights fees from ABC/ESPN or the BTN had begun. I feel pretty confident that this extra money is from something other than addition of Nebraska.

          Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        @Brian,
        Yeah the standard growth rate for most of these television contracts (judging off of the ones we have enough data to figure from) falls within or very near 3 to 5%. And as you noted 8/9 over 7/8 was about 3.6% growth and 9/10 was about 3.2% over 8/9. Both fall within our 3 to 5% threshold. The 2010/2011 sudden 11.6% growth sticks out; especially considering the fact we are still 1 year before Nebraska.

        Once you get to FY12, it starts to get really complicated, and I’m not sure that it is even possible to figure out given the lack of available information about the re-negotiation of contracts.

        If standard contract growth is worth about $500k per year, then where is the CCG value? Did adding NE not add any value per team?
        It depends on how you want to look at it. The fact that Nebraska isn’t a full equity member in the Big Ten until 2017 and that their addition brought in about $20 million from the rights fees along in year 1 means they technically paid for their addition off the bat. Per Nebraska officials they are due to make about $13 million in year 1 of the Big Ten and then gradually catch up to the rest of the conference by the new tv contract in 2017. That means initially the rest of the schools made an additional $7 million a year or $600,000 from the TV rights for the conference championship game. We haven’t accounted for ticket revenue from the CCG or the undisclosed rights fee increases from ABC/ESPN and the BTN for the addition of Nebraska. The fact that the value for TV increases next year for Michigan and the overall conference distribution as well, shows Nebraska added per team value.

        Re: CBS not sure. I’d guess either this year or next year. Also not sure about the financials. As a Nebraska fan, I’ll be honest in saying I doubt our addition did anything to help with the CBS contract. That said, the reported value of the old CBS contract at an average of $2 million a year is somewhat inconsequential in the Big Ten media revenue as it is dwarfed by the ABC/ESPN and BTN deals. Over the average life of the contracts the deal represented less than 1% of the overall Big Ten rights fees.

        Like

  57. Michael in Raleigh says:

    ACC opposed to 9-game conference schedule:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/25611/acc-not-interested-in-9-game-format

    I can’t help but wonder, though, if a 9-game conference schedule will eventually be the way it HAS to go. If the Pac-12, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, and, for good measure, the Mountain West are all on 9-game conference schedules a few years from now, ACC teams will be hard-pressed to find room for more than one quality non-conference game.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Until the ADs say they need 9 games, it won’t happen since coaches hate it. Certainly FSU, GT and Clemson will fight it. As I said above, though, if MI can support 9 games with 110k seats and ND every year, anybody can.

      Before we went to 12 game seasons, teams used to play 1 less patsy every year. They’ll just have to get used to only having 2 easy OOC games again. The fans could force 9 games by not attending as well for the bad OOC games, especially if they see most of the other AQs dealing with it. They should view it as a way to earn more BCS bids.

      Like

      • jj says:

        Mi won’t have nd every year for long. Nd is pushing msu, mi and maybe purdue to allow for 2 year hiatuses every now and then. I’d prefer these to be annual affairs, but it may help with going to 9.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          It still seems like they are planning to play almost annually with occasional 2 year breaks. That’s functionally equivalent to annual for this argument. It’s a tenth quality AQ opponent if the B10 goes to 9 games, and also limits how many other national teams they could play.

          Like

        • cutter says:

          Purdue and Notre Dame put together a scheduling agreement in October 2009 to play one another each year between now and 2021. See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/5704/purdue-notre-dame-series-extended-to-2021

          Michigan State and Notre Dame put together their latest scheduling agreement in April 2009. The two won’t play one another in 2014/5 and and 2020/1. The agreement runs through the 2025 season. MSU plays West Virginia in 2014/5 and Alabama in 2016/7. The last break in the MSU-ND series was 1995/6. See http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4105867

          Michigan and Notre Dame have been on one another’s schedules consistenly since 1978 with only three 2-year breaks. The most recent break occurred during the 2000/1 seasons. The next scheduled break in the series is 2018/9.

          Right now, Michigan’s schedules through 2014 have the Wolverines playing Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State either all at home or all away. See http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/081809aab.html for future schedules. Per Michigan Athletic Director Brandon in October 2010, Michigan and Notre Dame are working on a long-term scheduling agreement, but options will be limited by a nine-game conference schedule. See http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-ad-dave-brandon-says-facing-alabama-on-a-texas-sized-stage-is-a-terrific-opportunity/

          Brandon also mentioned in an article I can’t find that he won’t be able to support a future schedule whereby ND, UN and OSU are all home or away games. Unless the Big Ten changes up the conference schedules starting in 2015 onward to ensure Nebraska and Ohio State aren’t both home games for Michigan each year, then the future of the Notre Dame series may be in doubt. ND doesn’t want to change its currently scheduling set up because it would mean having both USC and UM away or at home rather than one away and one home–thus the impasse.

          On a somewhat related note, Brandon has mentioned his desire to expand the seating capacity of Michigan Stadium with additional construction the south side of the stadium. New scoreboards are currently being put into place that will be in use for the 2011 season. Brandon has talked about adding bleacher seats built on either side of the scoreboards to a height level with the top of the new structures on the east and west sides of the stadium. He estimates seating will be in the 119,000 to 120,000 range. See http://detnews.com/article/20110526/SPORTS0201/105260452/Dave-Brandon-explores-possibility-of-120-000-seat-Michigan-Stadium

          In order to keep the stadium filled and fans interested, I imagine he’ll want to keep the home schedule interesting–thus another reason to move to the nine-game conference schedule. He’ll also want to make sure his major non-conference opponent is a high-level attraction and has a strong fan base willing to travel to Michigan. Because of its proximity to Ann Arbor, Notre Dame remains an obvious choice and having an additional game with a team from the Leaders Division also makes sense. If a scheduling agreement doesn’t go forward with Notre Dame, however, then I suspect Brandon will look at other high profile programs to fill the scheduling slot. Texas and Oklahoma from the Big XII make sense (and both of these teams already have ND on their future schedules) while a number of SEC programs might be willing to do a home-and-home as well. As long as Florida plays FSU or Miami on a regular basis, I wouldn’t include them, but programs like Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama (which is playing UM in Dallas for the 2012 season opener), Auburn and LSU might be possibilities as well. Florida State (which has a home-and-home with OU), Miami-FL (which has a three-game series with ND) and Virginia Tech from the ACC might be other candidates.

          Like

  58. Craig Z says:

    I don’t think this has been posted. It’s the Ohio State football budget .

    http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/31/ohio-states-football-budget/

    It shows a 6.7% increase in TV money (budgetwise) from 2010-11 to 2011-12. I’m not sure how much of that is simply the escalating of the ESPN/ABC contract and how much is an increase of the BTN.

    Here also is the athletic department as a whole:

    http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/01/how-profitable-is-ohio-state-university-athletics-department/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I believe it was mentioned on the previous post from Frank, based on the date.

      The data shows the same trend from FY11 to FY12 as the MI budget posted above with FB about 65% of the TV total.

      Like

  59. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The College World Series began today. As I’m writing this, Vandy is up 5-3 over UNC in the bottom of the 6th. The new ballpark looks great, but I’ll always remeber sitting in Rosenblatt’s Rightfield Bleachers in 1991, witnessing LSU’s first of 6 CWS championships.

    15 years ago, the greatest play in CWS history occurred. It was the winner-take-all championship game between Miami and LSU. In the botton of the 9th, LSU was down by a run, with a runner on base and two outs. LSU’s Warren Morris steps to the plate. Due to a wrist injury, he had not hit a HR all season.

    Here’s the video and commentary of greatest play in CWS history.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=williams/110615_warren_morris_college_world_series&sportCat=ncaa

    Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      I kinda like defensive play that takes a team out when they think they are getting back into it.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Since I don’t root for any of the teams, it’s tough to pick who I’d prefer win it. Cal has a nice story, but I tend to lean to Vandy and their long history of limited athletic success (1 national title ever, in women’s bowling). On the other hand, Vandy is SEC and the last thing the world needs is to give SEC fans something to talk about.

      So I guess that means, go UVA although I don’t like rooting for the top seed.

      Like

    • Mike says:

      @Alan – I had a little fun running for cover when the tornado sirens went off last night. Rosenblatt had its charm but the expierence is much better in downtown Omaha than by the Zoo in south O.

      Like

  60. Tom Smith says:

    Barry Alvarez is quoted on the University of Nebraska athletics website as saying Missouri and Rutgers made “a strong run” for admission to the B1G, as well as several more schools in the East. Anyone know who those other schools in the East he is talking about?

    Like

    • SideshowBob says:

      If there are “several other schools in the East”, the big candidates in my mind would be Syracuse, Pitt and Maryland. There was a lot of buzz here in MD about UMD truly considering the Big Ten, but who knows if that was real or not.

      Like

    • frug says:

      Illinois’ new president was the president at UConn back when all the realignment stuff was going on and he mentioned that he was really hoping for a Big 10 invite because he thought it would help the school gain AAU status. He didn’t mention if he actually campaigned though.

      Like

  61. Tom Smith says:

    Dear Frank: What do you know about this?

    Like

  62. Jake says:

    Anybody post this yet? First two rounds of the re-draft were released today:
    http://www.cowboysrideforfree.com/2011/6/20/2225505/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-rounds-1-and-2-are-in-the-books

    Similar to my top ten in content, if not in order. I had Auburn and Nebraska instead of Georgia and Florida State. In hindsight I should have put Georgia in – maybe as a high second round pick. I’d still take NU over FSU, though – more profitable and better history. Markets and coeds are better at FSU, though.

    BC Interruption cleaned up by landing the two most profitable college football programs in the country. I also like the USC-Notre Dame rivalry, even if I’m not sure I would have made those picks there. Black Heart Gold Pants passed on a golden opportunity to land the Florida-Georgia rivalry. Not sure about taking OU with the 10th pick either – Tennessee and Auburn are both in the same financial range and would have provided nice rivals for Alabama. Better history with the Sooners, I guess. And taking FSU when PSU was sitting there waiting to be paired with tOSU? Questionable, Big East Coast Bias.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      You beat me to it, but I also included the first 4 picks of round 3.

      There were certainly some questionable picks (LSU at #6, FSU>PSU, UL at #16). OU gives access to TX talent (and even some of the TX TV market) and it has great history, so I don’t question it so much. Especially since they went on to get NE next.

      Like

    • M says:

      UCLA was too high. They’re in a great position but they never seem to have much of an impact.

      Louisville is a crazy reach. Perhaps Big East Coast Bias was worried about catching flak for not selecting a Big East school, but even then WVU is the better choice.

      Best available:
      Tennessee
      Wisconsin
      Clemson
      Texas A&M
      WVU

      (probably UCLA and Oregon here)

      Next bunch:
      Iowa
      UNC
      Washington
      Cal
      Pitt
      NC State
      Miami
      Arkansas

      I would have taken each and every one of the above list before Louisville.

      Like

      • M says:

        I left out Auburn in the best available and MSU in the next bunch.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        I think UCLA went about right. They open up LA as a TV market and for recruiting. They have decent tradition in FB (top 25 or 30) and are a MBB king. They also bring a ton of national titles in a variety of lesser sports and great academics. LA is a bandwagon city so if UCLA gets the right coach and starts winning, they could pass USC locally for attention.

        Like

        • M says:

          UCLA was not a Louisville level reach, but I wouldn’t have taken them before Nebraska or the “best available”, all of which have better proven fanbases. UCLA has been the “other” football school in LA for some time. If they get 10 wins for 5 years in a row, they will be the toast of the town, but whether or not that happens is speculation. The same could be said about Rutgers and NYC.

          Also, as you say below LA is just not a good college football town or sports town in general. It might have a bigger population, but not enough fans to support two programs more than Wisconsin or Tennessee is able to support one.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            I can see taking NE, but the rest of your list doesn’t impress me much. They had TX and GA, so TAMU, TN and Clemson wouldn’t add much. WV and WI have much smaller markets and AU is second fiddle to AL in a smaller market. Add in all the other benefits of UCLA (MBB, other sports, academics) and I think they were a solid pick where they went.

            UCLA never won 10 for 5 years in a row, but they did win 46 games in 5 years in the 80s. They’ve won 60% of their games in the past 50 years, but only 56% the last 20 years (65% in the previous 20 years).

            Like

  63. Brian says:

    http://www.cowboysrideforfree.com/2011/6/20/2225505/sb-nation-conference-re-draft-rounds-1-and-2-are-in-the-books

    The first 2 rounds of the conference re-draft are done.
    1. TX, FL, AL, OSU, USC, LSU
    2. GA, PSU, OU, FSU, ND, MI (picked from R to L for round 2)

    Round 3 is at least started:
    3. UCLA, VT, NE, UL, ?, ?

    Comments:
    1. Conf 1 has a good combo with TX and GA. That’s a lot of talent and TVs available. Getting UCLA adds LA to the talent and market mix.

    2. Conf 2 did really well with FL and PSU. That’s east coast domination. I think they reached for VT, though.

    3. Conf 3 has a good pair of kings with OU and AL. I’m surprised OU fell that far. NE gives them a major rivalry, but they also chase TX talent like OU. I might have wanted a bigger market with no major cities yet.

    4. Conf 4 could have had OSU and PSU but chose FSU instead. I understand the allure of FL access, but I think they undervalued PSU in terms of total eastern access plus a rivalry with OSU. UL is a huge reach, going at least 2 rounds too soon.

    5. Conf 5 did well to get USC and ND, nobody else got a top rivalry that soon. I think they need some southern access next (TAMU, Miami, etc).

    6. Conf 6 reached for LSU at #6, but MI was a solid pick.

    Like

    • Jake says:

      I probably would have listed Michigan over LSU, but it doesn’t really matter at that point. Nothing wrong with taking PSU, but Florida-Georgia is a tough rivalry to pass up. And again, the Bulldogs are the second most profitable football team in the country (although UG and PSU are about even in terms of football revenue). VT is a headscracher, for sure. And by UL do you mean Louisville? I think someone got carried away with basketball revenue. Not with Auburn, Tennessee, Miami (although I was surprised to see how far down the revenue list they are) A&M and a few others on the board.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I think they wanted geographical diversity by taking PSU over GA. The dominance of FL over GA lately may have reduced the value of the rivalry in the eyes of the commissioner. FL can already recruit GA, while PSU gives them the whole northeast down to MD at least.

        Yes, Louisville. They make great MBB money, but have limited FB fans and a small talent/market base. You have to wonder how much thought went into some of these picks.

        Miami doesn’t sell tickets very well, but that might change if they had more FB schools to play. FSU sells out, and Clemson, GT and VT probably do OK.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2011/6/21/2233838/making-the-conference-rounds-1-and-2

        BHGP explains their pick of VT. Basically, they went with DC and solid football. More interesting to me was this statement:

        “Obviously football is the strong suit in the Sisterhood, but we’re talking about three nationally prominent programs here. By that I mean legitimately nationally prominent, and not like “Iowa” nationally prominent (sorry, but let’s be honest).”

        That’s a big statement for an Iowa blog.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      UPDATE: Round 3 is now almost done.

      1. TX, FL, AL, OSU, USC, LSU
      2. GA, PSU, OU, FSU, ND, MI (picked from R to L for round 2)
      3. UCLA, VT, NE, UL, OR, ?

      The bloggers doing the picks are from:
      1. BC Interruption (BC)
      2. Black Heart Gold Pants (IA)
      3. Team Speed Kills (SEC)
      4. Big East Coast Bias (Big East)
      5. House of Sparky (ASU)
      6. Red Cup Rebellion (Ole Miss)

      http://www.houseofsparky.com/2011/6/21/2234523/ncaa-conference-re-draft-project-three-rounds-deep

      I found the article here to be interesting. It shows a P10-centric view of college sports by the writer which is something we don’t get a lot of here.

      1. He’s excited to get USC because he’s a P12 blogger. I don’t think USC was a bad pick, but the whole point of this draft is not to care about conference affiliation. He shouldn’t be extra excited for USC as opposed to TX or FL. Also, he thinks USC owns LA. In terms of CFB he’s right, but it’s not exactly a diehard CFB town..

      2. He’s excited about ND for NBC (obviously) and for the recruiting boost in the midwest. A quick look at the roster would have told him ND recruits more nationally than regionally. They’ll be some help in the midwest but they help as much elsewhere. He also failed to mention the rivalry as a positive.

      3. As for Oregon, he says that “the Ducks have an epic football stadium (Autzen) and the nicest college basketball arena in the country (Matthew Knight Arena).” I’m not sure how many outside of the west would call Autzen epic (loud for its size, yes, but not epic), and I think a couple of schools might argue about basketball arenas (UL, UK, others?).

      Like

      • Gopher86 says:

        I’m surprised the guy who picked USC and Notre Dame didn’t pick up Stanford. Director’s Cup winner, natural rival and it locks up California pretty well.

        Like

        • Gopher86 says:

          I’m surprised the guy who picked USC and Notre Dame didn’t pick up Stanford. Director’s Cup winner, natural rival and it locks up California pretty well.

          Nvm … read the draft incorrectly.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Were you surprised by OR over Stanford? I think Stanford will come much later due to a small fan base. They are great at non-revenue sports but about average at FB and MBB.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            You were right, BTW, HoS picked USC and ND. I just mentioned the picks were R to L for order of selection in round 2 so people wouldn’t wonder why someone selected GA ahead of ND and MI.

            Sorry if I confused you.

            Like

    • Brian says:

      http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/6/21/2235736/conference-re-draft-third-round-is-in-the-books

      UPDATE: Round 3 is now done.

      1. TX, FL, AL, OSU, USC, LSU
      2. GA, PSU, OU, FSU, ND, MI (picked in order from R to L for round 2)
      3. UCLA, VT, NE, UL, OR, NC

      The bloggers doing the picks are from:
      1. BC Interruption (BC) – TX, GA, UCLA
      2. Black Heart Gold Pants (IA) – FL, PSU, VT
      3. Team Speed Kills (SEC) – AL, OU, NE
      4. Big East Coast Bias (Big East) – OSU, FSU, UL
      5. House of Sparky (ASU) – USC, ND, OR
      6. Red Cup Rebellion (Ole Miss) – LSU, MI, NC

      I think RCR did pretty well to get UNC here. It opens the mid-atlantic for recruiting, they get a BB king and they get solid other sports with great academics. How they balance this with the first pick of the next round is important, though.

      The article also shares some input from the BECB about their reasons for picking UL so early:
      1. Louisville’s basketball program is very profitable and will be even more profitable with the new arena
      2. They care about basketball
      3. This is for fun, so why not add flavor by not picking an SEC or Big Ten school?

      Like

  64. Richard says:

    Map of where life expectancy is _declining_ in the US:

    Can’t help but notice that those counties are heavily concentrated in SEC & B12 country.

    The better the football, the shorter your lifespan?

    What also stands out, of course, is the the difference across the Red River.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The Oklahoma/Arkansas border has the same thing. It makes me think the younger generations are leaving southern and eastern Oklahoma for the neighboring states. Is anyone here familiar enough with eastern Oklahoma to explain why only the border counties seem to be losing out?

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Not sure why young people leaving would affect life expectancy. I imagine that they got this data just by going to the county office to get the ages of everyone who died in a particular year (which is how they can show that life expenctancy is better or worse than 5 or 10 years ago for a particular county).

        Oh, and Hispanics outlive their socio-economic peers:
        http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-womens-health-20110615,0,1751262,full.story

        Like

        • Brian says:

          It depends on if they were talking the average LE for the current residents (and thus impacted by the current demographics) or what the LE at birth would be.

          It should be noted the map was for women only, too.

          Much of the drop (and the map doesn’t indicate the size of the drop, 1 day or 10 years both show as red) may be due to obesity and smoking increases. Oklahoma might want to investigate their healthcare system as the border discrepancies with both TX and AR are pretty clear, but the other side was only slightly positive (< 1 year gained) so it might not be as bad as it seems.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Looks like a map of high poverty areas. Eastern OK has a high American Indian population. Don’t know about Southern OK.

            Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      That map coincides pretty well with areas with of high rates obesity (and therefore higher rates of heart disease), as well as lower incomes (and therefore less education about how to maintain good health and less people who have affordable healthcare).

      Like

  65. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    If I die early, its Les Miles’ fault!

    Like

  66. bullet says:

    USC takes 6 years to resolve. Cam Newton may never get resolved. But when it comes to statistics the NCAA gets on things quickly:
    http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/32032/kentucky-bows-to-ncaa-on-caliparis-record

    Like

    • Brian says:

      They have to take that sort of thing seriously if they use vacating wins as a punishment. You can’t let a member institution blatantly ignore an imposed penalty.

      Like

      • Ross says:

        But they let San Diego State celebrate Fisher’s win count, including the ones that were vacated at Michigan. Consistency never seems to be a priority for the NCAA.

        Like

  67. bullet says:

    Houston Chronicle article (its an endless link address, so you can look it up at http://www.chron.com if you want) says 25 schools are starting football the next 4 years, 8 next year-UTSA, 4 NAIA schools, 2 Division III schools and Virginia University of Lynchburg as an independent (whatever that is). The article says Stetson and Mercer are the biggest schools over the 3 following years, both FCS non-scholarship.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s